text:
# Untitled Document

Géométrie algébrique/Algebraic Geometry

(Physique mathématique/Mathematical Physics)

Examples of mirror partners arising from integrable systems   To appear in C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris.

Tamás HAUSEL $`^\text{a}`$, Michael THADDEUS $`^\text{b}`$

$`^\text{a}`$Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

$`^\text{b}`$Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA

Abstract. In this note we present pairs of hyperkähler orbifolds which satisfy two different versions of mirror symmetry. On the one hand, we show that their Hodge numbers (or more precisely, stringy E-polynomials) are equal. On the other hand, we show that they satisfy the prescription of Strominger, Yau, and Zaslow (which in the present case goes back to Bershadsky, Johansen, Sadov and Vafa): that a Calabi-Yau and its mirror should fiber over the same real manifold, with special Lagrangian fibers which are tori dual to each other. Our examples arise as moduli spaces of local systems on a curve with structure group SL(n); the mirror is the corresponding space with structure group PGL(n). The special Lagrangian tori come from an algebraically completely integrable Hamiltonian system: the Hitchin system. © Académie des Sciences/Elsevier, Paris

Partenaires miroirs provenants des systèmes intégrables

Résumé. Nous présentons dans cette note des paires de V--variétés hyperkähleriennes satisfaisant deux formulations différentes de la symétrie miroir. Nous montrons d’une part que leurs nombres de Hodge (plus précisément, leurs E--polynômes de cordes) coincïdent. D’autre part, nous montrons qu’elles satisfont le critère de Strominger, Yau et Zaslow, c’est--à--dire qu’elles sont fibrées sur la même variété réelle, de sorte que les fibres soient des tores Lagrangiens spéciaux duaux entre eux. Nos exemples se présentent comme espaces de modules de systèmes locaux sur une courbe avec groupe de structure SL(n); le miroir est l’espace correspondant avec groupe de structure PGL(n). Les tores Lagrangiens spéciaux proviennent d’un système Hamiltonien complètement intégrable algébriquement, le système de Hitchin. © Académie des Sciences/Elsevier, Paris

Version Française Abrégée

Il s’agit dans cette note de donner quelques exemples de variétés algébriques complexes où l’on peut vérifier directement les prédictions de symétrie miroir, au sens de Strominger-Yau-Zaslow .

Soient $`M`$ et $`\widehat{M}`$ des $`V`$-variétés Calabi-Yau de dimension complexe $`n`$. On appelle $`\widehat{M}`$ un partenaire miroir faible de $`M`$ s’il existe une $`V`$-variété $`N`$ de dimension réelle $`n`$, et des applications lisses $`\pi :MN`$, $`\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{M}N`$ telles que, sur un ouvert dense de $`N`$, les fibres $`L_x=\pi ^1(x)`$ et $`\widehat{L}_x=\widehat{\pi }^1(x)`$ sont des tores Lagrangiens spéciaux, et que les systémes locaux $`\pi _1(L_x)`$ et $`\pi _1(\widehat{L}_x)`$ sont en dualité.

Considérons le cas où $`M`$ est hyperkähler, c’est-à-dire Kähler par rapport à trois structures complexes $`J_1,J_2,J_3:TMTM`$ satisfaisant les relations de commutation des quaternions imaginaires.

Lemme. – Dans ce cas, $`LM`$ est Lagrangien spécial par rapport à $`J_1`$ s’il est Lagrangien holomorphe par rapport à $`J_2`$.

Si de plus $`M`$ est un système Hamiltonien complètement intégrable algébriquement (SHCIA), alors il existe sur un ouvert dense une fibration par tores Lagrangiens holomorphes, comme on s’y attend. L’exemple-clé est le système de Hitchin, que l’on peut décrire comme suit.

Soit $`C`$ une courbe lisse complexe projective de genre $`g`$, $`pC`$ un point de base, et $`n`$ un entier, le rang. Pour chaque $`d𝐙`$, soit $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ l’espace de modules des fibrés de Higgs semistables $`(E,\varphi )`$ sur $`C`$ satisfaisant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nE𝒪(dp)`$ et $`\mathrm{tr}\varphi =0`$. De la meme façon, soit $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ l’espace de modules des systèmes locaux sur $`C`$ avec groupe de structure $`\mathrm{SL}(n)`$ sur $`C\backslash \{p\}`$, dont la monodromie autour de $`p`$ est $`e^{2\pi id/n}`$. Nous renvoyons à Simpson  pour les définitions exactes.

Théorème (Hitchin, Simpson). – Avec la notation ci-dessus,

(1) il existe un homéomorphisme $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^dM_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$, et une structure hyperkählerienne sur la partie lisse dont les structures complexes $`J_1`$ et $`J_2`$ sont celles provenant de $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ et $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$;

(2) il existe une famille algébrique equisingulière $`_{\mathrm{Hod}}^d𝐀^1`$ dont le fibre en zéro est $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ et dont les autres fibres sont $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$; il existe de plus une action de $`\mathrm{GL}(1)`$ sur $`_{\mathrm{Hod}}^d`$ qui relève l’action linéaire sur $`𝐀^1`$;

(3) il existe un morphisme propre $`\mu _d:M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^dV`$, où $`V`$ est un espace affine indépendant de $`d`$, qui fait de $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ un SHCIA.

Théorème 1. – Ce résultat reste valable, sur une courbe $`C`$ avec un nombre fini de points choisis, pour les espaces $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ des fibrés de Higgs semistables paraboliques avec des poids fixes, et pour les espaces $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ des systèmes locaux filtrés avec la monodromie correspondante.

Nous définissons les espaces de modules correspondants avec groupe de structure $`\mathrm{PGL}(n)`$ comme étant les quotients les quotients de leurs contreparties $`\mathrm{SL}(n)`$ par le groupe abélien fini $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Pic}^0(C)[n]𝐙_n^{2g}`$. Celui-ci opère par tensorisation, et préserve toutes les applications qui apparaissent dans le Théorème plus haut. Nous indiquerons par un accent circonflexe le passage au quotient par $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: par exemple, le morphisme $`\mu _d:M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^dV`$ déscend à $`\widehat{\mu }_d:\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^dV`$.

Proposition. – Pour $`vV`$ générique, les fibres $`\mu _d^1(v)`$ et $`\widehat{\mu }_d^1(v)`$ sont des espaces principaux homogènes des variétés abéliennes polarisées $`\mu _0^1(v)`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }_0^1(v)`$, qui sont duales entre elles.

Pour un $`d`$ quelconque, $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^0`$ (resp. $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^0`$) admet donc une fibration holomorphe par tores duaux à ceux de $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ (resp. $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$). En appliquant le lemme, on trouve que le partenaire miroir de $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ (resp. $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$) doit être $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^0`$ (resp. $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^0`$). Puisque ces espaces sont des $`V`$-variétés hyperkähleriennes, à cause de la symétrie miroir , nous pouvons prédire que leurs polynômes de Hodge, ou plutot leurs $`E`$-polynômes de cordes , notés $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$, doivent etre égaux. On peut vérifier la prédiction dans deux cas, où tous les espaces qui interviennent sont des $`V`$-variétés.

Considérons d’abord le cas parabolique, en supposant qu’il existe un point avec structure parabolique où les poids sont suffisament génériques.

Conjecture. – Dans ce cas, pour $`c,d𝐙`$,

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{DR}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(\widehat{M}_\mathrm{D}^d).$$

Théorème 2. – Ceci est valable pour $`n=2`$ et $`n=3`$.

Considérons maintenant l’autre bon cas: celui où il n’y a pas de structure parabolique, mais où le rang $`n`$ et le dégré $`d`$ sont premiers entre eux. Dans ce cas, le partenaire miroir de $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$, c’est-à-dire $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^0`$, a de mauvaises singularités, et la relation miroir n’est pas symétrique. Néanmoins, des calculs suggèrent la conjecture suivante.

Vafa  et Vafa-Witten  ont montré que, pour un groupe fini $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, un élément $`\rho H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ quelconque définit un $`E`$-polynôme de cordes, de façon tordue, d’une $`V`$-variété $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Ils appellent ce phénomène torsion discrète. Dans notre cas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐙_n^{2g}`$. Soit $`\eta `$ le générateur standard de $`H^2(𝐙_n^2;\mathrm{U}(1))𝐙_n`$, et soit $`\rho =_{i=1}^g\pi _i^{}\eta `$$`\pi _i:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐙_n^2`$ la projection sur les facteurs $`(2i1)`$’ème and $`(2i)`$’ème.

Conjecture. – Pour $`c,d𝐙`$,

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{DR}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}^{c\rho }(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)=E_{\mathrm{st}}^{c\rho }(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^d).$$

Théorème 3. – Ceci est valable pour $`n=2`$ et $`n=3`$ si $`c`$ et $`n`$, et $`d`$ et $`n`$, sont premiers entre eux.

The object of this note is to exhibit some striking mathematical evidence in support of the Strominger-Yau-Zaslow (SYZ) proposal for mirror symmetry in string theory , which however does not yet have a completely satisfactory precise mathematical formulation. In this note we describe some hyperkähler varieties which satisfy a mathematical version of some of the conditions laid down by these authors to be mirror partners, and whose stringy mixed Hodge numbers turn out to be equal. The latter could be considered as a hyperkähler analogue of the “topological mirror test”, which was the first of the mathematically surprising findings of physicists pursuing the original mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau $`3`$-folds. The examples we present here also involve a complex reductive group $`G`$ and its Langlands dual group $`\widehat{G}`$. We hope $`G`$ could be taken to be any reductive group, but at one point we will need to assume that $`G`$ is $`SL(2)`$ or $`SL(3)`$.

An $`n`$-dimensional Kähler orbifold is said to be Calabi-Yau if it is Ricci-flat and it is equipped with a nowhere vanishing holomorphic $`n`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A submanifold $`L`$ is special Lagrangian if it is Lagrangian and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Omega }|_L=0`$.

Let $`M`$ and $`\widehat{M}`$ be Calabi-Yau orbifolds of complex dimension $`n`$. In this note we call them weak SYZ mirror partners if there exists an orbifold $`N`$ of real dimension $`n`$ and smooth maps $`\pi :MN`$, $`\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{M}N`$ so that, if $`x`$ is a regular value of $`\pi `$ and $`\widehat{\pi }`$, $`L_x=\pi ^1(x)`$ and $`\widehat{L}_x=\widehat{\pi }^1(x)`$ are special Lagrangian tori, and if the local systems of the $`\pi _1(L_x)`$ and $`\pi _1(\widehat{L}_x)`$ are in duality, which is equivalent to say that there is a smoothly varying diffeomorphism $`\widehat{L}_x^{}L_x^{}`$. Here for any torus $`L`$ we define $`L^{}=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(L),\mathrm{U}(1))`$; the double dual is used to provide a distinguished basepoint. If in addition there are special Lagrangian sections $`s`$ and $`\widehat{s}`$ of $`\pi `$ and $`\widehat{\pi }`$, then the basepoints are automatically provided, so that $`L_x=L_x^{}\widehat{L}_x^{}`$ and $`\widehat{L}_x=\widehat{L}_x^{}L_x^{}`$; in this case we call $`M`$ and $`\widehat{M}`$ SYZ mirror partners. We note that the original SYZ picture in  has extra conditions on the restricted metrics of these tori, but the metric they consider arises in a “large complex limit”, which does not yet have a completely satisfactory mathematical formulation. Although we hope that our examples will also pass some appropriate metric conditions, for now we omit this, leaving the above fibrewise duality property rather weak. Note however that in our hyperkähler case we find something stronger: the tori are principal homogeneous spaces of abelian varieties in duality.

In general it is a hard analytical problem to find special Lagrangian tori on $`M`$. But in one case an easy lemma shows how to reduce it to a question of holomorphic geometry. Suppose that the Riemannian orbifold $`M^{4k}`$ is hyperkähler, that is, it is Kähler with the three Kähler forms $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3`$ with respect to three complex structures $`J_1,J_2,J_3:TMTM`$ satisfying the commutation relations of the imaginary quaternions. Then it is easy to check that the $`2`$-form $`\omega _1^c=\omega _2+i\omega _3`$ is a holomorphic symplectic form in the complex structure $`J_1`$. We denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=(\omega _1^c)^k`$ the holomorphic volume form, which makes $`(M,J_1)`$ into a Calabi-Yau manifold. We define $`\omega _i^c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ cyclically.

Lemma. – In this situation, $`LM`$ is special Lagrangian with respect to $`J_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ provided that it is holomorphic Lagrangian with respect to $`J_2`$ and $`\omega _2^c`$.

If, in addition, $`M`$ is an algebraically completely integrable Hamiltonian system (ACIHS), then it has a generic holomorphic Lagrangian torus fibration exactly as desired. A key example is furnished by the so-called Hitchin system, which can be described as follows.

Fix a smooth complex projective curve $`C`$ of genus $`g`$, a basepoint $`pC`$, and a positive integer $`n`$, the rank. For any $`d𝐙`$, let $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ be the moduli space of semistable Higgs bundles $`(E,\varphi )`$ on $`C`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nE𝒪(dp)`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}\varphi =0`$. (If $`d=0`$, these conditions mean that $`(E,\varphi )`$ has structure group $`\mathrm{SL}(n)`$.) Also let $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ be the space of local systems with structure group $`\mathrm{SL}(n)`$ on $`C\backslash \{p\}`$, having monodromy $`e^{2\pi id/n}`$ around $`p`$. We refer to Simpson  for the definitions of Higgs bundles, semistability, and so on.

Theorem (Hitchin , Simpson ). –  With the above notation,

(1) there is a homeomorphism $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^dM_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ and a hyperkähler structure on the smooth locus so that the complex structures $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ correspond to those provided by $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$;

(2) there is an equisingular algebraic family $`_{\mathrm{Hod}}^d𝐀^1`$ whose zero fiber is $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ and whose other fibers are $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$, and a $`\mathrm{GL}(1)`$-action on $`_{\mathrm{Hod}}^d`$ lifting the standard action on $`𝐀^1`$;

(3) there is a proper morphism $`\mu _d:M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^dV`$, where $`V`$ is an affine space independent of $`d`$, making $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ into an ACIHS. This morphism has a holomorphic Lagrangian section when $`d=0`$.

Theorem 1. – A similar result holds, over a curve $`C`$ with a finite number of punctures, for the moduli spaces $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ of semistable parabolic Higgs bundles with fixed weights and $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ of filtered local systems with the corresponding monodromy.

In fact, similar spaces, and corresponding Theorems, exist for principal Higgs bundles with any reductive structure group ; the space $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^0`$ is the case of $`\mathrm{SL}(n)`$. The spaces $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ for $`d0`$ are not only used for the construction of the $`\mathrm{PGL}(n)`$ moduli spaces below but also will play a decisive role in our main result. The only other group needed here is $`\mathrm{PGL}(n)`$; we define the corresponding moduli spaces as the quotients of their $`\mathrm{SL}(n)`$ counterparts by the finite abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Pic}^0(C)[n]𝐙_n^{2g}`$. This acts by tensorization, and preserves all of the maps appearing in the result of Hitchin and Simpson. The degree $`d`$ corresponds to the class of the $`\mathrm{PGL}(n)`$-bundle in $`H^2(C,𝐙_n)=𝐙_n`$. We denote the quotient by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a hat: for example, the morphism $`\mu _d:M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^dV`$ descends to $`\widehat{\mu }_d:\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^dV`$.

Proposition. – For generic $`vV`$, the fibers $`\mu _d^1(v)`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }_d^1(v)`$ are principal homogeneous spaces of the polarized abelian varieties $`\mu _0^1(v)`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }_0^1(v)`$. Indeed, for any $`c,d`$ there are natural isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{Pic}^d(\mu _c^1(v))=\widehat{\mu }_d^1(v)$$

and

$$\mathrm{Pic}^d(\widehat{\mu }_c^1(v))=\mu _d^1(v),$$

where $`\mathrm{Pic}^d`$ denotes the space of line bundles with first Chern class $`d`$ times the polarization of the underlying polarized abelian variety.

The relevant abelian varieties can be constructed directly, using the method of spectral covers of Beauville-Narasimhan-Ramanan  and Hitchin , and can be seen to be the generalized Prym variety of the spectral cover and its dual.

Hence for any $`d`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^0`$ (resp. $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^0`$) has a holomorphic torus fibration dual to that of $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$ (resp. $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d`$). Using the lemma, one finds that $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^0`$ and $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^0`$, with the corresponding holomorphic volume forms, are SYZ mirror partners, and that $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^c`$ and $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ are weak SYZ mirror partners for any $`c`$ and $`d`$.

If at any puncture the parabolic weights are distinct, then $`\mu _d`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }_d`$ have holomorphic Lagrangian sections, so the dependence on $`c`$ and $`d`$ becomes unimportant.

For a compact hyperkähler manifold $`M`$, the Hodge numbers are easily seen to be self-mirror in that $`h^{p,q}(M)=h^{np,q}(M)`$. One would therefore hope that the mirror $`\widehat{M}`$ satisfies $`h^{p,q}(M)=h^{p,q}(\widehat{M})`$. We will see that (with a suitable notion of Hodge numbers) the latter equality holds for many of our mirror partners, even though they are not compact or self-mirror in the sense above. We have no explanation as to why this equality holds, rather than the usual mirror relationship $`h^{p,q}(M)=h^{np,q}(\widehat{M})`$.

For spaces which are non-compact and have quotient singularities, the right notion of Hodge polynomial seems to be the stringy $`E`$-polynomial of Vafa, Zaslow, and Batyrev-Dais . This is a polynomial in two variables $`x`$ and $`y`$, and will be denoted $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$.

For the present, we assume either (a) that the weights are sufficiently generic in the parabolic case, or (b) that $`n`$ is coprime to both $`c`$ and $`d`$ in the non-parabolic case. In these cases the moduli spaces without hats are smooth, so their $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$-polynomials reduce to the ordinary $`E`$-polynomials defined in terms of Deligne’s mixed Hodge structures on the compactly supported cohomology:

$$E(M)=\underset{k,p,q}{}(1)^{kpq}h^{p,q}(H_{\mathrm{cpt}}^k(M))x^py^q.$$

The moduli spaces with hats are global quotients of the smooth spaces by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so their $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$-polynomials can be defined by the orbifold method, according to which

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}(X/\mathrm{\Gamma })=\underset{\{\gamma \}}{}E(X^\gamma /C(\gamma ))(xy)^{F(\gamma )}.$$
$`(1)`$
Here the sum runs over conjugacy classes of $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`X^\gamma `$ is the fixed-point set of $`\gamma `$ on the smooth variety $`X`$, $`C(\gamma )`$ is the centralizer of $`\gamma `$, and $`F(\gamma )`$ is an integer called the fermionic shift. See Batyrev-Dais  for details.

Consider first case (a), when $`C`$ has at least one puncture where the weights are sufficiently generic.

Conjecture. – In this case, for any $`c,d𝐙`$,

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{DR}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^d).$$

Theorem 2. – This is true for $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$.

Sketch of proof. – The proof of the first and last equalities uses the family $`_{\mathrm{Hod}}𝐀^1`$ described above, together with a fiberwise compactification constructed as a quotient $`(_{\mathrm{Hod}}\times 𝐏^1)/\mathrm{GL}(1)`$. This part of the argument is in fact valid for any $`n`$ and $`d`$.

The proof of the middle equality is by explicit calculation. It is convenient to subtract $`E(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^c)`$ from both sides. On the left, what remains is the contribution of cohomology on $`M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^c`$ not invariant under the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action. This can be computed from the Białynicki-Birula stratification, using the methods of Hitchin  to describe the fixed points of the $`\mathrm{GL}(1)`$-action. On the right, the remaining terms are simply those in equation (1) above with $`\gamma 1`$. These can be calculated using the methods of Narasimhan-Ramanan  to describe the fixed points of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action. The construction again uses spectral covers, but since they are unramified it has quite a different flavor from before.

In the rank 2 case, one finds that

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)E(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)E(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)=2^{m1}(2^{2g}1)(xy)^{3g3+m}(1+x)^{g1}(1+y)^{g1},$$

where $`m`$ is the number of punctures whose two weights are distinct.

In the rank 3 case, the formula is similar but more complicated.

Now turn to case (b), where there are no punctures, but the rank $`n`$ is coprime to the degrees $`c`$ and $`d`$. In this case $`M_{\mathrm{DR}}^c`$ and $`\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^d`$ are merely weak mirror partners, and the stringy $`E`$-polynomials are different. Hitchin has suggested  that weak mirror partners should be understood as being equipped with “$`B`$-fields,” that is, flat gerbes on $`M`$ and $`\widehat{M}`$. Motivated by this, we expect that the right stringy Hodge numbers should somehow be twisted with these gerbes. We suggest that these twistings are occuring due to “discrete torsion” as sketched below.

Vafa  and Vafa-Witten  have shown that, for a finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, any element $`\rho H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ can be used to define stringy $`E`$-polynomials, in a twisted sense, of an orbifold $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. They refer to this as turning on the discrete torsion. In fact, $`\rho `$ induces homomorphisms $`C(\gamma )\mathrm{U}(1)`$ for each $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which give rise to local systems on $`X^\gamma /C(\gamma )`$; the $`E_{\mathrm{st}}`$-polynomial of $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then generalizes to a polynomial $`E_{\mathrm{st}}^\rho (X/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ where cohomology with coefficients in these local systems is used in equation (1).

In the present case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐙_n^{2g}`$. Let $`\eta `$ be the standard generator of $`H^2(𝐙_n^2;\mathrm{U}(1))𝐙_n`$, and let $`\rho =_{i=1}^g\pi _i^{}\eta `$ where $`\pi _i:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐙_n^2`$ is projection on the $`(2i1)`$th and $`(2i)`$th factors. This is in some sense the natural class corresponding to the symplectic form on $`C`$.

Conjecture. – For any $`c,d𝐙`$,

$$E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{DR}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}(M_{\mathrm{Dol}}^c)=E_{\mathrm{st}}^{c\rho }(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{Dol}}^d)=E_{\mathrm{st}}^{c\rho }(\widehat{M}_{\mathrm{DR}}^d).$$

Theorem 3. – This is true for $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$ when $`c`$ and $`d`$ are coprime to $`n`$.

The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.

Acknowledgement. The authors are grateful for Nigel Hitchin for suggesting the similarity between  and  in 1996 and for Pierre Deligne for numerous useful comments.

References

 Batyrev V.V., Dais D., Strong McKay correspondence, string-theoretic Hodge numbers and mirror symmetry, Topology 35 (1996) 901–929.

 Beauville A., Narasimhan M.S., Ramanan S., Spectral curves and the generalised theta divisor, J. Reine Angew. Math. 398 (1989) 169–179.

 Bershadsky M., Johansen A., Sadov V., Vafa C., Topological reduction of 4D SYM to 2D, Nuclear Phys. B 448 (1995), 166-186

 Hitchin N.J., Stable bundles and integrable systems, Duke Math. J. 54 (1987) 91–114.

 Hitchin N.J., The self-duality equations on a Riemann surface, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 55 (1987) 59–126.

 Hitchin N.J., Lie groups and Teichmüller space, Topology 31 (1992) 449–473.

 Hitchin N.J., Lectures on special Lagrangian submanifolds, notes from lectures given at the ICTP School on Differential Geometry, April 1999, preprint math.DG/9907034.

 Morrison D., Geometric aspects of mirror symmetry, preprint math.AG/0007090.

 Narasimhan M.S., Ramanan S., Generalised Prym varieties as fixed points, J. Indian Math. Soc. 39 (1975) 1–19.

 Simpson C.T., Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety, I, Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 79 (1994) 47–129.

 Simpson C.T., The Hodge filtration on nonabelian cohomology, Algebraic geometry — Santa Cruz 1995, 217–281, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 62, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997.

 Strominger A., Yau S.-T., Zaslow E., Mirror symmetry is T-duality, Nuclear Phys. B 479 (1996) 243–259.

 Vafa C., Modular invariance and discrete torsion on orbifolds, Nucl Phys. B 273 (1986) 592–606.

 Vafa C., Witten E., On orbifolds with discrete torsion, J. Geom. Phys. 15 (1995) 189–214.


format: text

text:
# Simulation of percolation on massively-parallel computers

## 1 Parallelizing Hoshen-Kopelman

The main problem when decomposing the lattice into perpendicular strips is to cope with the non-regular communication patterns arising from the Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm.

### 1.1 Local and global clusters

Cluster that are confined within a strip and are not in touch with interfaces between strips are called local; clusters that extend over several strips are called global.

The Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm describes clusters by labels. In the sequential version, a label can be a root label, describing a real cluster, or a non-root label pointing directly or indirectly to a root label (such labels are generated when during the counting a new cluster seems to emerge, but later is discovered to be part of another cluster).

For the parallel version, it is straightfoward to introduce three types of labels: non-root labels, root labels associated with local clusters (local root labels), and root labels associated with parts of global clusters (global root labels).

Associated with local root labels are the number of sites within the corresponding cluster; global root labels carry the number of sites in the cluster within the strip, and additionally pointers to the left and right neighbour labels.

During the simulation, a local label can be changed to global, when it extends to the interfaces of the strip. A global label can be changed to local during the recycling process, when neighbouring labels are discarded.

When two previously different global clusters join at one site, the neighbouring strips have to be informed of that fact, in order to join parts of the corresponding cluster into one. This is called pairing, as pairs of labels are joined. To reduce the number of messages that have to be sent, we gather these and exchange information after the local part.

### 1.2 Information exchange

After the local part within each strip has been simulated, communication between the processors takes place to find out if clusters extend over the interfaces, and what global labels are interconnected with each other.

### 1.3 Recycling

An important step for economic memory usage is the frequent recycling of non-root labels, as these carry no information, but are just an artefact of the algorithm that speeds up computation. Additionally, also root labels can be recycled, when they are not present in the current hyperplane of investigation. These methods are known as Nakanishi recycling .

In the parallel implementation, we can use the same technique for purely local labels; on the other hand, we have to be careful not to recycle labels that are still referenced by global labels in other strips. We do that by exchanging information about these references; during this process, references to non-root labels can be reclassified. In that way, we can delete all non-root labels, even those pointing to global root labels.

Global root labels are recycled using a stepwise reduction of global clusters along the strip: the rightmost strip that carries a part of a global cluster checks if it is still alive; if not, it is recycled and the left neighbour is informed that its right partner has vanished. If the left neighbour has itself no left neighbour, it is converted to a local label.

### 1.4 Step-by-step description of algorithm

The following list is a semi-formal description of the algorithm. Local and communication part are repeated for each hyperplane the system consists of, recycling is done whenever neccessary after the local and communication part, and counting is done after the full system was examined.

1. *Initialization*: Occupy the zeroth plane for busbar, if desired; initialize all data structures; etc.
2. *Local*:

1. Examine the strip site by site. Do labeling.
    2. When two different global clusters join at one site, generate pairing information for left and right neighbour, but defer communication until after the local part.
3. *Communication*:

1. Exchange borders of strip with neighbours.
    2. When two clusters of both strips join, convert clusters to global. If they are already global, but not yet connected, generate pairing information.
    3. Exchange pairing information. Pair global labels that belong together. During this, new pairing information can come up.
    4. Check if recycling is neccessary due to tight memory conditions.
4. *Recycling* (if neccessary):

1. Reclassify the current hyperplane with root labels.
    2. Delete all non-root labels that point to local root labels.
    3. Reclassify the pointers to left and right of the global root labels by asking the neighbours for the corresponding root labels.
    4. Delete all remaining non-root labels.
    5. Mark all living local root labels and delete the non-marked ones.
    6. Look for all global root labels that are not present in the current hyperplane and have no right neighbour; delete them and send the number of sites to the left neighbour.
    7. When a global label is informed that its right neighbour was deleted, and it has no left neighbour, convert it to local.
5. *Counting*:

1. Count local clusters.
    2. Concentrate global clusters.
    3. Count global clusters.
    4. Look for a global cluster which has not been concentrated. If it exists, we have connectivity. Sum up this cluster explicitly.
    5. Do output.

## 2 Results of Monte Carlo Studies

All simulations were done right at the critical threshold $`p_c`$ (except those for Fig. 2) and on square ($`2d`$), simple cubic ($`3d`$), and simple hypercubic ($`4d`$) lattices. The values for $`p_c`$ were taken from literature:

| $`2d`$ | $`p_c=0.5927464`$ | cf.  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`3d`$ | $`p_c=0.311608`$ | cf.  |
| $`4d`$ | $`p_c=0.196889`$ | cf.  |

As boundary conditions, one direction was busbar in two dimensions resp. open in higher dimensions, one direction was periodic, and for more than two dimensions all other directions were helical. This mix came quite natural during implementing the parallel algorithm.

### 2.1 Cluster size distribution

For the number $`n_s`$ of clusters of size $`s`$ in our system, we expect a distribution of kind $`n_ss^\tau `$ right at the critical threshold $`p_c`$. To make analysis easier, we look at $`N_s`$, the number of clusters with at least $`s`$ sites:

$$N_s=\underset{s^{}=s}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_s^{}k_0s^{\tau +1}.$$
(1)
In a double-logarithmic plot, we would expect a straight line with slope $`\tau +1`$. Deviations from the power law would not be visible due to the logarithmic scale, thus we plot $`s^{\tau 1}N_s`$ linearly on the $`y`$-axis. We can clearly see in Fig. 1 the deviation for small $`s`$ (due to corrections to scaling, see below) and for large $`s`$ (due to boundary conditions).

The values found for the proportionality constant $`k_0`$ (normalized by number of lattice sites) and the exponent $`\tau `$ are:

| $`2d`$ | $`k_0=0.032627(6)`$ | $`\tau =187/91`$***the value for $`\tau `$ is supposed to be known exactly |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`3d`$ | $`k_0=0.057423(3)`$ | $`\tau =2.190(2)`$ |
| $`4d`$ | $`k_0=0.0611(4)`$ | $`\tau =2.313(2)`$ |

Below $`p_c`$, we expect the size of the largest cluster to be proportional to $`\mathrm{log}(L)`$, cf. Fig. 2.

### 2.2 Corrections to scaling

For small $`s`$, the clusters do not follow the power-law $`n_ss^\tau `$; the system is not self-similar under renormalization, as the lattice spacing is an inherent length, very visible for small clusters. Thus our power-law is modified: $`n_s=k_0s^\tau (1k_1s^{\mathrm{\Delta }_1})`$. We find the exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ (and the factor $`k_1`$) by plotting $`\mathrm{log}(N_s/(k_0s^{\tau +1})1)`$ against $`\mathrm{log}s`$; for carefully adjusted $`k_0`$ and $`\tau `$, this yields a straight line with slope $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and intercept $`k_1`$.

We get a straight line only for small and intermediate $`s`$. For large $`s`$, the finite-size effects increase the $`n_s`$ over the expected value and limit the precision, cf. Fig. 3. Implementing fully periodic boundary conditions could give an improvement in precision.

The values found for the corrections to scaling amplitude and exponent are:

| $`2d`$ | $`k_1=0.50(2)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0.70(2)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`3d`$ | $`k_1=0.48(5)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0.60(8)`$ |
| $`4d`$ | $`k_1=0.5(1)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0.5(1)`$ |

### 2.3 Number density

The total number of clusters divided by the number of sites in the lattice is called the number density, right at $`p_c`$ the critical number density. For small systems, we expect finite-size corrections proportional to $`1/L`$. Statistical fluctuations depend on the total number of sites in the lattice and are proportional to $`1/L^d`$. Thus finite-size effects can be seen well in higher dimensions.

For two dimensions, we can simulate large $`L`$ and have no visible finite-size effects. But we can clearly see a dependence on the used random number generator. The classic and simple ibm = ibm * 16807 produces wrong results, whereas others agree well with each other (i. e. R(103,250), R(471,1586,6988,9689), R(18,36,37, 71,89,124),11 even ibm = ibm * 13\**13 seems to be acceptable). Thus the number density can serve as a test for bad random numbers, cf. Fig. 4.

The values found for the number density are:

| $`2d`$ | $`n_c=0.02759791(5)`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`3d`$ | $`n_c=0.0524387(3)`$ |
| $`4d`$ | $`n_c=0.0519980(2)`$ |

## 3 Efficiency

When implementing an algorithm on a parallel computer, we want to know how efficient our implementation is, i. e. if not too much time is wasted for communication.

The amount of neccessary communication is roughly proportional to the interface between the strips, i. e. $`NL^{d1}`$. This communication is the main difference between the sequential and parallel implementation, and reduces the parallel efficiency.

In two dimensions, a sequential implementation is roughly as fast as the parallel one, which means that the effort for communication is neglectable. In four dimensions, the fraction of runtime needed for communication is significant, but the time for the local part is still larger.

Although the domain decomposition in perpendicular strips requires more communication than other methods, it is still efficient enough for up to four dimensions. For even higher dimensions, this may change.

## 4 Summary

Parallelizing the Hoshen-Kopelman by dividing the lattice into strips perpendicular to the hyperplane of investigation is a viable approach. Using this method, world record simulations in two, three, and four dimensions have been carried out, beating the old world records.4,5 High precision results for the Fisher exponent $`\tau `$, the corrections to scaling exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, and the number density $`n_c`$ have been obtained. The values found are in reasonable agreement with those from other groups.4,5,9

## Acknowledgements

Fruitful discussions with D. Stauffer, N. Jan, and R. Ziff are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the Research Center Jülich for computing time on their Cray T3E.


text:
# The Case for Ω_𝑀=0.33±0.035

## 1 Introduction

The mean mass density of the Universe is a cosmological parameter of great importance. It can be expressed as a fraction of the critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M\rho _M/\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, or in physical units ($`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$). Moving between the Hubble constant:

$$\rho _M=1.88(\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2)\times 10^{29}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(1)
where as usual, $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=3H_0^2/8\pi G=1.88h^2\times 10^{29}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^310^{29}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

Over the past thirty years much effort has been devoted to determining the mean matter density (see e.g., Faber & Gallagher, 1979; Dekel et al, 1997; Turner, 2000; Primack, 2001). The task is daunting: the density of matter in a large enough sample of the Universe to be representative ($`>10^6\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$) must be determined. The most well developed techniques have been tied in one way or another to the distribution of light; e.g., mass-to-light ratios and peculiar velocities (see e.g., Bahcall et al, 1995; Carlberg et al, 1997; Dekel, 1994; Willick & Strauss, 1998).

The mass-to-ratio technique begins from the deceptively simple equation that relates the mean luminosity density and the mean mass density:

$$\rho _M=M/L.$$
(2)
Using the canonical value for the B-band luminosity density today111Important questions still remain about the mean luminosity density, including evolution. and solar units, Eq. 2 can be written as the familiar,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M=M/L_B/1200h.$$
(3)
The task is now transformed to determining the mean mass-to-light ratio. Either $`M/L`$ must be measured in a large enough volume to be representative ($`>10^6\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$), or measured for a system that can be argued to be “typical.” Needless to say, the accuracy of the inferred mean matter density can be no better than that of the mean mass-to-light ratio.

In attempting to determine $`M/L`$ attention has been focused on clusters, because of their size and relatively well determined total masses. However, clusters are not large enough to provide a representative sample of the Universe, and because the cluster environment is a high density one ($`10^210^3`$ times the mean density) in which only a few percent of galaxies find themselves, there is no a priori reason to believe that their mass-to-light ratio is representative.

The CNOC sample provides the largest and best understood sample of clusters, and from it Carlberg et al (1997) infer $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.19\pm 0.04`$. By comparing cluster data with N-body simulations Bahcall et al (2000) find a similar value, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.16\pm 0.05`$.

Field galaxies are more representative, but problematic because galaxy halos are large. In fact, no definitive evidence yet exists that the total mass of even a single galaxy halo has been determined. The advent of weak-gravitational lensing to probe the far reaches of galaxy halos and to determine their total masses may soon surmount this hurdle (see e.g., Fischer et al, 2000). However, for now, the values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ inferred from clusters (quoted above) represent the state of this art in mass-to-light ratios.

Peculiar velocities and bulk flows are directly tied to the underlying mass distribution; comparison of peculiar velocities and mass inhomogeneity ($`\delta \rho /\rho `$) fixes the mean density (see e.g., Dekel 1994). However, it is the distribution of galaxies – not mass – that is measured in redshift surveys. For this reason, this technique probes $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{0.6}/b`$, where $`b`$ is the assumed linear bias factor between light and mass. (Nonlinear effects break the degeneracy, but there has been little success in exploiting this fact.) The peculiar-velocity technique has its own convergence problem: Unless the mass distribution is surveyed to a volume sufficiently large to include all of the inhomogeneity that gives rise to the peculiar velocity, an accurate value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ will not be obtained. Currently, there are unexplained differences in the values obtained for $`\beta `$, which range from 0.4 to almost 1.

A first step toward a physically based technique was proposed by White et al (1993). The method goes like this. Assume that galaxy clusters provide a “fair sample” of matter in the Universe, i.e., that their composition reflects the universal baryon-to-total mass ratio ($`=\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$). Then, from our knowledge of the baryon density from big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), the mean matter density can be inferred:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\left(\frac{M_T}{M_B}\right)_{\mathrm{cluster}}\mathrm{\Omega }_B(\mathrm{BBN})$$
(4)
While the bias factor $`b`$ never enters, there are potential systematics: Can one find all the cluster baryons? Can the ratio be determined on large enough scales to ensure that baryon settling is not an issue? White et al (1993) and others (e.g., Mohr et al, 1998) have argued that the answer to these questions is yes, and several recent recent reviews of the mean matter density have given significant weight to this technique (see e.g., Dekel et al, 1997; Turner, 2000; and Primack, 2001).

Today, other physical measurements, including CMB anisotropy and measurements of the power spectrum of matter inhomogeneity, can be added to the mix. As I will describe, the physically based methods have become mature enough to self-consistently and robustly pin down the mass density with a relatively small error bar. The value I derive from the current data is:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.33\pm 0.035(1\sigma )$$
(5)
There are however several potential sources of systematic error (see below). Nonetheless, I believer that this marks an important first step toward an accurate determination of the mean matter density that is independent of the relationship of mass to light.

## 2 The Input Data: Physical Measurements

A suite of physical measurements can now probe the distribution of matter and the mean matter in an unbiased way. They include accurate determinations of CMB anisotropy on angular scales down to 0.1 degrees and measurements of the shape of the power spectrum of matter inhomogeneity. CMB anisotropy depends significantly upon the physical baryon and matter density, as well as other parameters, but not upon the connection between mass and light.

The shape of the power spectrum of mass inhomogeneity depends significantly upon $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M/\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$; it can be measured by weak-gravitational lensing (cosmic shear) and through the distribution of galaxies (redshift surveys). Cosmic shear measurements are insensitive to bias, but are much less mature. Redshift surveys are sensitive to bias in determining the power spectrum itself. However, the shape of the power spectrum is only sensitive to strong scale-dependent bias on large scales around the bend in the power spectrum associated with matter-radiation equality ($`30\mathrm{Mpc}/\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$).

With MAP, Planck, full results from the SDSS and 2dF, and additional cosmic-shear measurements coming, the future for an accurate, physically based measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ is very bright. I believe there is now enough data to make a preliminary estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ using these techniques.

The following physical measurements comprise my input data for determining the baryon and total matter densities:

$`\mathrm{Power}\mathrm{Spectrum}\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$ $`=`$ $`0.20\pm 0.03`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ $`=`$ $`0.15\pm 0.07`$
$`\mathrm{CMB}\mathrm{Anisotropy}\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.16\pm 0.04`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}`$
$`\mathrm{BBN}\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.020\pm 0.001`$
$`\mathrm{Clusters}\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ $`=`$ $`(0.07\pm 0.007)h^{3/2}(\mathrm{X}\mathrm{ray})`$
$`=`$ $`(0.08\pm 0.01)h^1(\mathrm{S}\mathrm{Z})`$
$`\mathrm{Hubble}\mathrm{constant}h`$ $`=`$ $`0.72\pm 0.07`$
The shape of the power spectrum of matter inhomogeneity depends upon $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, as well as other parameters. Currently, the best determination of these two parameters come from an analysis of 160,000 redshifts in the 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; Percival et al, 2001). The baryon-to-total matter ratio is determined from the presence of “baryon bumps” in the power spectrum; it is hardly a significant result at the moment and gives almost no weight to the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. Early results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) are consistent with the 2dFGRS numbers, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh=0.19\pm 0.04`$ (Dodelson et al., 2002; Szalay et al., 2001).

Significant improvement in both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ can be expected when the 2dF and SDSS surveys have amassed and analyzed their full samples of 250,000 and 600,000 redshifts respectively. The results will also be more robust. For example, current analyses assume scale-invariant perturbations ($`n=1`$) and there are still correlations between $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$. While cosmic-shear measurements of large-scale structure are not yet good enough to have significant leverage on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, they will be in the future (see e.g., van Waerbeke et al., 2001; Maoli et al., 2001).

The structure of the acoustic peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum depends upon the total matter density and the baryon density (in physical units): the ratio of the odd to even peaks pins down the baryon density and the height of the first peak is sensitive to the total matter density (see e.g., Hu et al, 1997). I have used the values extracted from the first-year DASI results (Pryke et al, 2002). (The correlations between the two densities are small.) A re-analysis of the 1998 flight of Boomerang yields similar values (Netterfield et al, 2002). Combining the two results – which I have not done – would reduce the error bars by about $`\sqrt{2}`$.

While the consistency of DASI, a radio interferometer operating at around 30 GHz, and Boomerang, bolometers in bands above 100 GHz, is very reassuring, there are still significant issues. Both groups used a limited number of parameters (7) and priors on the Hubble constant ($`h>0.45`$) and optical depth to last scattering ($`\tau <0.4`$). The parameters preclude a large contribution by tensor (gravitational wave) perturbations; while unlikely, relaxing that assumption can significantly change the inferred baryon density (see e.g., Wang, Tegmark and Zaldarriaga, 2002). With MAP and Planck on the horizon, significant improvement, both in the precision and the robustness of the results, lies ahead.

At present, the most precise determination of the physical baryon density comes from combining measurements of the primeval abundance of deuterium (see e.g., O’Meara et al, 2001) with accurate theoretical predictions of the light-element abundances (see e.g., Burles et al, 2001). I follow the analysis of Burles et al (2001) in adopting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.02\pm 0.001`$. Here too, there are still issues to be resolved: possible unidentified systematics in the determination of the primeval deuterium abundance; reliable values for the primeval 4He and 7Li abundances to compare with the values predicted from the deuterium-determined baryon density. Over the next decade, as more deuterium systems are found and the 4He and 7Li abundances are better understood, the accuracy and reliability of the BBN baryon density should improve.

The baryon-to-matter ratio in clusters can be determined by x-ray measurements alone and by measurements of the Sunyaev – Zel’dovich (SZ) distortion of the CMB combined with x-ray measurements. For x-ray measurements alone, I adopt the cluster baryon fraction determined from a sample of 45 clusters by Mohr et al (1998), and for the SZ/X-ray determination I use the cluster sample of Grego et al (2001).

Potential sources of systematic error remain. There is some clumping of cluster gas, which could lead to an overestimation of the amount of gas. The baryon-to-total mass ratio does vary with radius, and the calibrations are done by comparison with numerical simulations. The treatment of gas dynamics in these simulations still involves approximations and assumptions. Better simulations, more observations of clusters with the SZ technique and x-ray should address the key issues and improve the reliability of this sampling technique.

The sensitivity of the abundance of clusters, both as a function of cluster mass and redshift, to the matter density has been used to estimate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (see e.g., Bahcall & Fan, 1998; Blanchard et al, 2000; Henry, 2000). However, the range in inferred values is broad, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.11`$, largely because of the exponentially important, but uncertain relation between cluster mass and x-ray temperature. For this reason, I do not include these measurements in my determination of the matter density.

Finally, the value of the Hubble constant is important in converting physical densities to fractions of critical density; I adopt the value determined by the Hubble Key Project: $`h=0.72\pm 0.07`$ (Freedman et al, 2001). The error is almost entirely due to systematics (the statistical error is only $`\sigma _h=\pm 0.02`$). The largest part of the systematic error budget is in the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud. Possible dependence of the Cepheid period – luminosity relation on metallicity may also be an issue.

## 3 The case for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.33\pm 0.035`$

Having adopted these physical measurements as input data, it is straightforward to deduce the fractions of critical density contributed by matter and by baryons, as well as the Hubble constant. But first, consider the consistency of these measurements. The physical baryon density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$) is determined by BBN, CMB anisotropy and the power spectrum + Hubble constant:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.020\pm 0.001\mathrm{BBN}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}\mathrm{CMB}`$
$`=`$ $`0.022\pm 0.011\mathrm{Power}\mathrm{Spectrum}+H_0`$
These three, independent determinations of the baryon density are clearly consistent, giving one confidence in the case for a low baryon density ($`\rho _B4\times 10^{31}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$). They involve very different physics – nuclear reactions when the Universe was seconds old, gravity-driven acoustic oscillations when the Universe was around 400,000 yrs old, and the inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter in the Universe today – and thus also provide an important test the consistency of the big-bang framework and general relativity.

Next, consider the ratio of the total matter density to the baryon density:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M/\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ $`=`$ $`7.2\pm 2.1\mathrm{CMB}`$
$`=`$ $`6.7\pm 3.1\mathrm{Power}\mathrm{Spectrum}`$
$`=`$ $`9.0\pm 1.4\mathrm{Clusters}(\mathrm{SZ})+H_0`$
$`=`$ $`8.7\pm 1.6\mathrm{Clusters}(\mathrm{x}\mathrm{ray})+H_0`$
Again, all four measurements are clearly consistent and involve different physics – gravity driven acoustic oscillations, inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter today, and cluster dynamics.

Using standard techniques (and flat priors) I have constructed the likelihood function for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ and $`h`$. From this, a posteriori probability distributions and credible ranges are calculated by marginalizing over one or two of these quantities in the usual way. The $`1\sigma `$ ranges are:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.039\pm `$ $`0.0075`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.33\pm 0.035`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`0.69\pm 0.06`$ (7)
While the one-dimensional probability distributions are not perfectly Gaussian, the 68% and 95% credible ranges match pretty well with these $`1\sigma `$ error flags.

The value for the baryon fraction is largely driven by BBN and $`H_0`$; alone they imply $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.0385\pm 0.0077`$. Likewise, the Hubble constant is largely driven by its direct determination. The different scalings of the baryon-to-matter ratios with Hubble constant also provide important leverage, which can be seen in two ways: (1) the joint determination of $`h`$ has a slightly smaller uncertainty than the direct measurement alone, $`\pm 0.06`$ vs. $`\pm 0.07`$; (2) if one arbitrarily doubles the uncertainty in the Hubble constant, $`h=0.72\pm 0.14`$, and carries out the same analysis, the results do not change dramatically:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.040\pm `$ $`0.012`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.33\pm 0.045`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`0.69\pm 0.075`$ (8)
To investigate the robustness of my estimates for the matter and baryon densities I have studied their sensitivity to the individual input data. To investigate sensitivity to scale-dependent bias on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$ I increased $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh}`$ by a factor of 4. The central values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ were unchanged and their errors increased to $`\pm 0.044`$ and $`\pm 0.0076`$ respectively. One by one I doubled the errors for the other input data; the central values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ changed little and the errors grew to at most $`\pm 0.05`$ and $`\pm 0.008`$ respectively. One minor trend was observed: enlarging the error flags on both the X-ray and SZ cluster baryon fractions by a factor of 4, to significantly reduce the weight given to the cluster baryon fraction, decreased the estimate for the matter density by about $`1\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.29\pm 0.05`$.

## 4 Concluding remarks

Based upon present measurements of physical quantities not tied to the distribution of light I conclude that: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.33\pm 0.035`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.039\pm 0.0075`$. While potential sources of systematic error remain, I have shown that these mass-density determinations are robust, and do not depend strongly upon any one measurement.

The precision and reliability of these determinations should improve over the next decade. With Planck and MAP the uncertainty in both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ is likely to drop to the percent level (see e.g., Eisenstein et al, 1999); the cluster and power spectrum derived quantities are likely to improve by at least a factor of two. The situation with the Hubble constant is more difficult to predict.

To illustrate the potential for improvement, I have reduced the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ to 1%, in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh`$ to 5%, in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ to 20%, and in the cluster baryon fractions and Hubble constant by a factor of two. The projected $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ drop to $`\pm 0.012`$ and $`\pm 0.0017`$ respectively.

Already the physically based matter density has interesting implications. First, combining it with the CMB determination of the total mass/energy density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1\pm 0.05`$ (Hanany et al, 2000; Netterfield et al, 2002; Pryke et al, 2002), makes a very strong case for an additional component to the Universe (referred to as dark energy) that is smoothly distributed with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X=0.67\pm 0.06`$. This evidence for the dark energy bolsters significantly the direct evidence for dark energy from supernovae (Perlmutter et al, 1999; Riess et al, 1998).

Second, the physically based matter density is about a factor of 2 larger than that determined from the mass-to-light ratios of clusters, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.19\pm 0.04`$ (Carlberg et al, 1997) and $`0.16\pm 0.05`$ (Bahcall et al, 2000). This suggests that baryons in the cluster environment produce twice as much light as in the field. Going a step further, this implies the fraction of baryons that become stars is about a factor of two higher. The SDSS will determine mass-to-light ratio for a stacked sample of millions of field galaxies in five-color bands using weak lensing and will test this hypothesis by providing a reliable estimate of $`M/L`$.

Finally, in probing the nature of the dark energy, independent knowledge of the matter density is crucial for breaking the degeneracy between the dark energy equation-of-state ($`w_Xp_X/\rho _X`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (see e.g., Maor et al, 2001; Weller & Albrecht, 2001; Huterer & Turner, 2001). The value deduced here is essentially independent of the nature of the dark energy (assuming a flat Universe), and the current one-sigma uncertainty would already help significantly to break the degeneracy in future determinations of $`w_X`$.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the DoE (at Chicago and Fermilab), the NSF (through the CfCP) and by the NASA (at Fermilab by grant NAG 5-7092). I thank the participants of the 2002 Workshop on Large-scale Structure at the Aspen Center for Physics for helpful comments.


text:
# Energetics of rocked inhomogeneous ratchets

## Abstract

We study the efficiency of frictional thermal ratchets driven by finite frequency driving force and in contact with a heat bath. The efficiency exhibits varied behavior with driving frequency. Both nonmonotonic and monotonic behavior have been observed. In particular the magnitude of efficiency in finite frequency regime may be more than the efficiency in the adiabatic regime. This is our central result for rocked ratchets. We also show that for the simple potential we have chosen, the presence of only spatial asymmetry (homogeneous system) or only frictional ratchet (symmetric potential profile), the adiabatic efficiency is always more than in the nonadiabatic case.
PACS: 05.40.-a, 05.60.-k, 82.40.Bj

Much has been studied in ratchet models (Brownian motors) to determine how directed motion appears out of nonequilibrium fluctuations in the absence of any net macroscopic force. Here athermal fluctuation combined with spatial or temporal anisotropy conspire to generate systematic motion even in the absence of net bias . These studies have been inspired by the observations on molecular motors in biological systems . To this effect several physical models have been proposed under the name of rocking ratchets, flashing ratchets, diffusion ratchets, correlation ratchets, frictional ratchets  etc. In most of these systems, focus was mainly on the behavior of probability current with change in system parameter like temperature, amplitude of external force, correlation time, etc. The efficiency with which these ratchets convert fluctuation to useful work is a subject of much recent interest . New questions regarding the nature of heat engines (reversible or irreversible) at molecular scales are being investigated. Especially the source of irreversibility and whether the irreversibility can be suppressed such that efficiency can approach that of Carnot cycle  and generalization of thermodynamics principles to nonequilibrium steady state are being investigated . We use the method of stochastic energetics developed by Sekimoto . In this scheme, quantities like heat, work done and input energy can be calculated within the framework of Langevin equation. Using this approach efficiency has been studied mainly as a function of temperature and load in rocking, oscillating and frictional ratchets. In some cases it has been shown that efficiency can be maximized at finite temperature . The efficiency in these systems are rather small, the reason being inherent irreversibility of these engines due to finite current.

In our present work we mainly explore the nature of efficiency in frictional rocking ratchets as function of frequency of external drive. The systematic study of efficiency as a function of frequency in rocked ratchets has not been studied so far. We show in the following that a rocking ratchet with inhomogeneous friction coefficient can have efficiency which is a nonmonotonic function of frequency. In some parameter range, the efficiency in the nonadiabatic regime can even be larger than in the adiabatic regime. This is solely due to the interplay between the asymmetry in the potential and the space dependent friction coefficient. In absence of frictional inhomogeneity our system reduces to a conventional rocked ratchet. It may also happen that inspite of this nonmonotonic behavior with frequency the adiabatic efficiency is larger than the nonadiabatic efficiency. This shows that in the nonequilibrium regime efficiency exhibits complex behavior some which are against the established tenets of equilibrium phenomena, like efficiency in quasi-static processes is maximum. It is difficult to find any systematic principle or procedure that can optimize the efficiency.

Transport properties in overdamped inhomogeneous systems have been dealt with great detail previously . Occurrence of multiple current reversals , current reversal under adiabatic or deterministic conditions, unidirectional motion in the absence of potential , stochastic resonance in the absence of periodic forcing have also been observed . Most of these phenomena arise solely due to the presence of frictional inhomogeneity. It is to be noted that systems with space dependent friction are not uncommon. Brownian motion in confined geometries show space dependent friction. Particles diffusing close to surface have space dependent friction coefficient . It is also believed that molecular motors move close along the periodic structure of microtubules and will therefore experience a position dependent mobility . Frictional inhomogeneities are common in super lattice structures and semiconductor systems .

We consider an overdamped Brownian particle moving in an inhomogeneous 1D ratchet like potential, rocked by a finite frequency driving force. We consider an asymmetric potential of the form $`V(x)=1/(2\pi )(\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x)+\mu /4\mathrm{sin}(4\pi x))+Lx`$, where $`L`$ is the external load against which the Brownian particle moves on average. $`\mu `$ is the asymmetry parameter and is in between the range $`0`$ and $`1`$. The direction of load is chosen against the mean drift of the Brownian particle so that the work done by the particle is positive. The system is rocked by a zero mean external force of the form $`F(t)=A\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)`$. The correct Langevin equation for such a motion has been derived using microscopic treatment of system bath coupling .

$$\dot{x}=\frac{(V^{}(x)F(t))}{\eta (x)}k_BT\frac{\eta ^{}(x)}{(\eta (x))^2}+\sqrt{\frac{k_BT}{\eta (x)}}\xi (t),$$
(1)
The quantity $`x`$ represents the spatial position of the system. It should be noted that the above equation involves a multiplicative noise with an additional temperature dependent drift term which turns out to be essential for the system to approach correct thermal equilibrium state in absence of external drive $`F(t)`$ and load $`L`$ . The Gaussian white noise $`\xi (t)`$ is delta correlated with mean zero, i.e., $`<\xi (t)\xi (t^{})>=2D\delta (tt^{})`$. The friction coefficient $`\eta (x)=\eta _0(1\lambda \mathrm{sin}(2\pi x+\varphi ))`$, $`|\lambda |<1`$ and $`\varphi `$ determines the relative phase shift between friction coefficient and potential. The Fokker Planck equation corresponding to eqn. ( 1) is given by

$$\frac{P(x,t)}{t}=\frac{J(x,t)}{x}=\frac{}{x}\frac{1}{\eta (x)}[k_BT\frac{}{x}+(V^{}(x)F(t))]P(x,t),$$
(2)
where $`J(x,t)`$ and $`P(x,t)`$ are the current density and probability density respectively. The mean current

$$J=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{\tau }_t^{t+\tau }𝑑t_0^1J(x,t)𝑑x,$$
(3)
which is obtained numerically by solving eqn. (2) by the method of finite difference. The work done against the load, given by $`W=LJ`$. The average input energy $`E`$ is given by $`E=lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{1}{\tau }_t^{t+\tau }𝑑t_0^1F(t)J(x,t)𝑑x`$. The efficiency of the system to transform the external force to useful work (storing potential energy) is

$$\eta =\frac{W}{E}=\frac{LJ}{lim_t\mathrm{}\frac{1}{\tau }_t^{t+\tau }𝑑t_0^1F(t)J(x,t)𝑑x},$$
(4)
where $`J`$ is calculated from eqn. (3).

We now discuss the effect of finite frequency drive, spatial asymmetry and inhomogeneous friction coefficient on the efficiency of energy transduction. It is observed that spatial asymmetry or space dependent friction coefficient alone cannot enhance the nonadiabatic efficiency as compared to the adiabatic one in a rocked thermal ratchet. However, the interplay of both can enhance the efficiency in the nonadiabatic regime.

First we discuss the nature of efficiency in an asymmetric ratchet in the absence of spatial frictional inhomogeneity ($`\lambda =0,\mu =1`$). This ratchet in contact with thermal bath produces directed motion when rocked by a finite force. The direction of current being dependent both on the direction of asymmetry as well as the frequency of the driving force . When rocked adiabatically, the current shows maxima at some nonzero value of temperature. Even though the current shows a maxima the efficiency monotonically decreases with temperature . The situation changes in the nonadiabatic regime as shown in the fig. 1. Throughout this work temperature and frequency have been scaled appropriately to make them dimensionless . In fig. 1 we have plotted $`\eta `$ vs $`T`$ for various values of $`\omega `$. It can be seen that unlike the adiabatic case, $`\eta `$ shows a maxima at a nonzero value of temperature. The value at which $`\eta `$ peaks, decreases with decreasing frequency, as it should be. We have observed that even though the efficiency peaks at nonzero value of temperature in the nonadiabatic regime, efficiency in the adiabatic regime (at $`T=0`$)is much larger than the peak nonadiabatic efficiency.

In fig. 2 we have plotted efficiency as function of rocking frequency for various values of $`T`$ (and $`A`$, in the inset). Current reversal as function of frequency is a common phenomena in a driven asymmetric ratchet. Since beyond a critical frequency, the current reverses its direction , the load has been applied in the opposite direction in that regime so that work is done against the load. As shown in the fig. 2, for low frequencies, efficiency shows a monotonic decrease with frequency. The rate of decrease of $`\eta `$ with $`\omega `$ being critically dependent on temperature $`T`$ and amplitude $`A`$. In the current reversed regime, the efficiency shows a maxima with $`\omega `$, though its value is much less than the adiabatic efficiency. We have verified this fact by exhaustive numerical work with our given potential.

We now consider a system in which friction is space dependent with a symmetric potential profile. Unidirectional current results whenever $`\varphi 0,\pi `$ or $`2\pi `$ as discussed in ref. ( ). In these models inversion symmetry is broken dynamically by space dependent friction. This system does not exhibit current reversal with any of the variables like $`T,A`$ or $`\omega `$ (in the absence of $`L`$) and hence we keep the load fixed in one direction for comparison of efficiency. In fig. 3 we have plotted $`\eta `$ vs $`\omega `$ for $`A=0.5,\varphi =0.6\pi `$ and $`L=0.012`$. For all values of $`T,\lambda `$ and $`\varphi `$, the efficiency monotonically decreases with $`\omega `$, i.e., for a given $`T`$ the adiabatic efficiency is always maximum. In the two cases considered above ($`\lambda =0`$ with asymmetric potential and $`\lambda 0`$ with symmetric potential ) adiabatic current is always more than the absolute value of the peak current in the nonadiabatic regime. The efficiency in our present case is mainly determined by the nature of currents and hence the result follows.

We now concentrate on frictional ratchets with asymmetric potential profile ($`\lambda 0,\mu 0`$). The efficiency characteristics of these ratchets have many novel and counterintuitive features. In fig. 4 we plot efficiency as function of $`\omega `$ for two values of forcing amplitude $`A`$ with $`T=0.08,\lambda =0.9,\varphi =0.2\pi `$ and $`L=0.015`$. It can be clearly seen that the nonadiabatic efficiency is higher than the adiabatic efficiency, which is contrary to common belief that a rocked Brownian ratchet is inefficient in the nonadiabatic domain. This enhanced efficiency basically results from the increase in the current with increase of frequency in current reversed regime. The increase of current in this regime can be ascribed due to mutual interplay of spatial asymmetry and space dependent friction coefficient . The phase difference $`\varphi `$ is chosen in such a manner so that the steeper side has lower friction coefficient than the slanted side. The inset shows a different qualitative behavior of $`\eta `$ with increase of $`\omega `$. Here $`A=1.5,T=0.4,\lambda =0.1,\varphi =0.2\pi `$ and $`L=0.001`$. In this parameter regime there is no current reversal. Here as we increase frequency from adiabatic regime, $`\eta `$ increases till it exhibits a maxima at very high frequency and decreases on further increasing the frequency.At high $`T`$ and in the adiabatic regime, particles get sufficient kicks and enough time to cross the barrier on both the side, but the frictional drag on the steeper side is less. Hence the current flow is in the negative direction. On increasing the frequency, the Brownian particles get less time to cross the right barrier as it has to travel larger distance to reach the basin of attraction of the next well than from the left side. Hence the net current increases. From the above argument it can be easily seen that the efficiency increases with increasing asymmetry (increasing $`\mu `$) and vice-versa which we have checked in our work. For too high frequencies the particles do not get sufficient time to cross either of the barriers and the current decreases which reflects in the decrease of efficiency as shown in the fig. 4. Hence efficiency optimization at high frequency is not only a phenomenon in current reversed regime but other wise also. On decreasing temperature the asymmetric ratchet effect becomes more pronounced and efficiency increases along with the shift of the peak efficiency to lower frequency regime.

Like other previous cases depending on the parameter values the efficiency ( as a function of $`T`$) may or may not be maximized at finite temperature . This optimum value (if maxima exists) increases initially with increasing frequency and then for too high frequencies it decreases as discussed earlier. The temperature at which $`\eta `$ peaks increases with increasing frequency as shown in the fig. 5. This shows that unlike conventional wisdom where we associate high driving frequency and temperature with inefficient energy conversion, here both high frequency (nonadiabatic regime) and temperature enhances efficiency.

In conclusion we have studied the efficiency of energy transduction in a forced frictional ratchet as function of rocking frequency. Both nonmonotonic and monotonic behavior have been observed. In particular the magnitude of efficiency in finite frequency regime may be more than the efficiency in the adiabatic regime. This implies that in these rocked ratchet systems quasi-static operation may not be efficient for conversion of input energy into mechanical work. Observation of peak in the efficiency as function of system parameters can be qualitatively attributed to the peak in the current and not to the behavior of input energy, though the occurrence of peak in current may not guarantee a peak in efficiency as observed earlier . Here we have taken a simple ratchet type potential with space dependent friction coefficient to illustrate the above results. We do not rule out the fact that similar result can also be obtained in homogeneous systems for different ratchet potentials provided they exhibit larger absolute peak current in the nonadiabatic regime. It is interesting to explore this possibility. It should be noted that in flashing ratchets unlike rocking ratchets, efficiency can show peaking behaviour as a function of frequency. This is because both in zero frequency and in high frequency limit flashing ratchet does not exhibit current . Detailed study of input energy, work done and dependence of efficiency on other system parameters will be reported in future.


text:
# 1 Addendum

## 1 Addendum

After the submission of the manuscript to the web I was informed that several related papers appeared before. In particular  and  deal with $`R^2`$ terms and more. The work of  deserves special mention since it has a strong overlap with the present work but their emphasis is rather different. For the continuity/discontinuity arguments in the higher curvature theory, I refer the reader to the following recent article . I duly thank the authors of the above works for the correspondence.

## 2 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank S. Deser, A. Ibarra, I. Kogan, V. K. Onemli, G. Ross and R. Sturani for reading the manuscript and for useful discussions. This work is supported by PPARC Grant PPA/G/O/1998/00567.