text:
# Professional Astronomy without a Librarian

## 1. The Place

Since 1997 the DA of UG (DAUG) is housed at 2200 m above sea level, overlooking the city of Guanajuato, close to the “geometrical center” of Mexico, and declared as “heritage of mankind” by UNESCO. The research staff of eight astronomers participates in undergraduate teaching within the Physics and other programs at UG, and hopes to offer a postgraduate program in astrophysics soon. The DA maintains the Observatorio La Luz with a 57-cm optical reflector, used for public outreach purposes and being prepared as a student laboratory.

## 2. Origins of our Library

The two founder-members of the DA had already collected (by donations) a few decades of ApJ, AJ, and MNRAS, but other major journals (like A&A) had been subscribed only since 1994. Since my arrival, in late 1996, I volunteered as “provisional” librarian, given the lack of a professional Department librarian hired by UG. The central library of UG was too far away to manage efficiently the library of the DA. As a matter of fact this situation continues until now.

After preparing the first inventory of our holdings in early 1997, I posted an inquiry to ASTROLIB for donations to fill the holes of our journal coverage. This caused a wave of offers from professional librarians all over the world. Hundreds of kilos of journals were received over the following months. In June 1997 the DA moved to its present building with only 6 offices for 10 people, and no library room. However, our neighbor, the Maths Research Center “CIMAT”, maintained by the Mexican science foundation CONACyT, generously offered $``$ 60 m2 of their library “provisionally” for the DA. CIMAT is $``$ 200 m away ($``$ 40 m vertical !), but  it closes during nights and weekends which never made it attractive for a “leisure visit”. After five years nothing has changed !

## 3. Our Present Library

As it was not practical to store all our holdings “up there” at CIMAT, we decided to use all possibly available space in the offices and corridors for the most recent journals ($``$ 1 year back) and modern books (for teaching and research). Until now our hopes to obtain a dedicated library were not fulfilled, despite a written promise and money allocation by UG in spring 2001. Thus the journals have grown hopelessly beyond their initially assigned growth space. Maintaining the alphabetic order of journals would now imply a full rearrangement of our holdings which is beyond our available manpower. Moreover, in the meantime most of our journal holdings have become available freely from ADS, making a visit to the physical library each time less attractive to our staff. However, downloading of articles is often limited to weekends given our slow internet line.

In the absence of a librarian, or other suitable personnel, I only seal the books with a DA stamp but do not afford to assign them a catalog number, so they have no “reproducible” shelf location yet. Moreover, in mid-1999 a heavy rain and a leaky window affected part of our shelves at CIMAT, and about 15% of our book holdings, many of them of historic interest, were waterlogged. Most of the book holdings had to be removed in a hurry (in my absence) and since then only very limited “order” was re-established. I visit the library at most once a month to accommodate what does not fit any more in our office building.

## 4. Subscriptions

Since its foundation the DA received the six major astronomy journals by personal subscription. The idea was that we would gradually be able to pay institutional rates, but with a 2002 budget of USD 3000 we still cannot afford a single journal at the institutional rate. Thanks to the generous permit by some publishers to continue with the personal rate, we manage to subscribe to ApJ, ApJS, AJ, MNRAS, A&A, Nature, PASA, PASJ, PASP, BAAS, S&T, and Mercury. These regular funds also allow us to buy very few conference proceedings (mainly from the rather economic ASP Conf. Series ) and IAU Symposia. The budget for books and other proceedings depends on the allocation of special funds from the Federal Secretary of Public Education (SEP) and on personal research projects (usually from CONACyT), and fluctuates between 0 and 8000 USD/yr. Delays in either the invoices of journal publishers, or in the payment by our central library, usually cause an interruption of our subscriptions during the first few months of each year (Does this sound familiar to you …?). Altogether, we are far from the ideal situation described in my earlier wishlist (Andernach 1998).

## 5. Donations

Thanks to frequent offers of duplicate items from professional astronomy librarians (e.g. vía ASTROLIB) we acquired an impressive amount of (mostly older) journals and monographs. Naturally many of these items are of interest to either the bibliophile or historians of astronomy and physics. While filling me with pride, it is a shame to store these books some 200 m away from our offices where hardly any of us finds the leisure to go and browse the shelves.

## 6. Inventory

I maintain the inventory as a single ASCII file (of $``$300 kb), readable by all members of the DA. It saves me to learn dedicated library software and allows an easy search of items using Unix’s grep command. For journals I use bibcode-style, and free format for the “rest” (monographs, theses, manuals, etc., currently $``$700 items). A small excerpt follows:

1834MmRAS 7 + | 1879MNRAS 39 - #2 Suppl. (p.489-560)
1843MmRAS 13 + | 1891MNRAS 52 - #2 Suppl. (p. 67-121)
1843MmRAS 14 + | 1933MNRAS 93 - 4-6,8,9
1847MmRAS 17 + | 1942MNRAS 101 - 8 only
1849MmRAS 19 + | 1942MNRAS 102 +
...
1879MNRAS 39 - no. 2 Suppl. (p.489-560)
1891MNRAS 52 - no. 2 Suppl. (p. 67-121)
Annals of the Cape Observatory VI, Darling & Son, 1897.
P.S. Barrera, E. Castro, J.R. Garza, J.J. Martinez, R. Aguirre: Memorias del Gran Eclipse del Sol,
Montemorelos, Nuevo León, 28 mayo 1900, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, 114 pp.
M. de Broglie: X-rays, Transl. by J.R. Clarke, E.P. Dutton & Co. Publishers, 1922, 204 pp.
D. S. De Young: The physics of extragalactic radio sources, Univ. Chicago Press, 2002, 558 pp.

## 7. Other Places in Mexico

There are now eight places in Mexico where professional astronomers work (Phillips et al., 2002). A rough map of their location is shown in Fig. 1. Only IA-UNAM, INAOE, and OAN (#1–3) have long histories and stable budgets for

library and librarian. All others (# 4 – 8) were established during the last decade. The following table gives an overview of the library situation at these five “new” places. The last column gives a comparison with the OAN library at Ensenada, maintained by UNAM. Numbers in brackets are either uncertain or very variable. The budget is listed for journals $`+`$ books.

| Location and | Morelia | DAUG | IAM- | U. Son- | Monter- | Ensen- |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ID # in Fig. 1 | (4) | (5) | UdG (6) | ora (7) | rey (8) | ada (3) |
| Research Staff | 19 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 25 |
| Libarian(s) available | - | - | (2) | - | (1) | 1 |
| Library Space exists ? | yes | (yes) | no | (yes) | no | yes |
| \# journals subscribed | 7 | 10 | 7 |  | 8 | 62 |
| Subscription rate | inst. | pers. | inst. |  | pers. | inst. |
| \# back years available | $``$20 | $``$50 | 2.5 | (2) | 6–20 | $``$20 |
| budget/year \[1K USD\] | 10+4 | 3+(2) | 3.5+? |  | $``$ 1 | 33+15 |
| Inventory exists? | no | yes | no | (yes) | (yes) | yes |

Astronomy acquisitions for IAM-UdG and Monterrey are made by their central libraries, causing a lack of transparency and communication between these and the astronomers. At DAUG we have no budget for binding journals. However, in 2001 we used some left-over monies for binding a few years of ApJ to find out that it was $``$ 3 times cheaper to bind them in Mexico City than in Guanajuato.

## 8. Conclusion

The changes in the job market and the Internet have affected radically not only the way astronomers work, but also how an astronomy library is run, especially at small and “poor” places. Today small groups of astronomers are established independently of favorable sky conditions and rely mainly on an adequate Internet connection, but often have to work without a professional librarian. While this may work “well”, i.e. with little effect on research output as in our case, it certainly relies heavily on the services provided by a few professional librarians thinking far beyond their own institution. I see a dangerous trend for a future 2-class system of astronomy institutions: those with professional librarians working almost “behind the scenes” and those which have to survive without a local librarian altogether.

### Acknowledgments.

P. Phillips, L.F. Rodríguez, A. Sánchez-Ibarra, P. Valdés Sada, and M.-E. Jiménez kindly provided data on their research centres. Thanks to U. Grothkopf and S. Stevens-Rayburn for comments, to A. Roy and N. Loiseau for printing the poster, and to L. Hdz. Mendieta for help with Figure 1. My attendance of LISA IV was financed by CONACyT grant E-27602.

## References

Andernach, H. 1998, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 153, Library & Information Services in Astronomy – III, eds. U. Grothkopf, et al. (San Francisco: ASP), 35

Phillips, J. P., Curiel, S., Moreno, M., Rodríguez, L. F., Carramiñana, A., Andernach, H., Sánchez-Ibarra, A., & Valdés Sada, P. 2002, AAS Newsl. 110, 24


format: text

text:
# Improving the Resolution of X-Ray Telescopes with Occulting Satellites

## 1 Introduction

One challenge of X-ray astronomy is the relatively low photon fluxes from target sources. X-ray telescope builders are forced to trade angular resolution against increased collecting area. Thus, while the diffraction limit of a $`1.2\mathrm{m}`$ aperture X-ray telescope (such as Chandra) is $`0.3\mathrm{mas}`$ at $`1\mathrm{keV}`$, the $`0.5\mathrm{as}`$ reality is worse than what is routinely achieved at longer wavelengths. While development proceeds on space-based X-ray interferometers, near-future X-ray missions such as Constellation X plan to increase effective area at the price of reduced angular resolution. MAXIM Pathfinder, which will afford $`100\mu `$as resolution , hopes to launch between 2008 and 2013; however, it will have an effective area of only $`100\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

In the interim, angular resolution can be substantially improved for bright, relatively stable sources. The general technique to do this is well-known—eclipse mapping. When a body such as the moon transits a telescope’s field-of-view (FOV), it occults different sources within the FOV at different times. By carefully measuring the photon count rate as a function of time during the transit, one can reconstruct the projection of the surface brightness in the FOV onto the path of the occulter.

Deployment of large occulting satellites has been discussed for the optical and near infra-red (Adams et al., 1988; Schneider, 1995; Copi & Starkman, 1998, 2000), for both planet finding and high-resolution astronomy. However, occulting satellites are particularly well-suited for use in the X-ray. In the X-ray, the diffraction of the photons by the satellite can generally be neglected (see section 3 below). The optimal size and placement of the satellite are therefore governed chiefly by one’s ability to accurately position the satellite and station-keep with respect to the line-of-sight to the source. The achievable resolution is then determined primarily by the telescope collecting area and by the level to which one can zero the XOSS-telescope relative velocity.

We consider an X-ray telescope at the the Earth-Sun system’s second Lagrange point (L2) (such as Constellation X). We discuss the size and steering of a XOSS in section 2. In section 3 we present the two-source angular resolution as a function of the XOSS–telescope relative angular velocity and of the photon count rate. In section 4 we reconstruct some test sources. Specific classes of sources are discussed briefly in section 5. Section 6 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Building and Using a XOSS

Locating XOSS: All current and some future X-ray telescopes use Earth orbit. Because orbital velocities are so high there, it is more difficult to use the approach we describe here; we will not discuss these further. Other X-ray telescopes, such as Constellation X, will be located at L2 or other low-acceleration environment (e.g. Earth-trailing and drift away orbits). We focus on these.

We have previously discussed in detail placing a large occulter at L2 (Copi & Starkman, 2000). Here we highlight the main points. Orbits around L2, both in and out of the ecliptic, have periods $`\tau 6\mathrm{months}`$, nearly independent of their size (for $`d10^4\mathrm{km}`$). Consider an X-ray telescope at L2 and a XOSS orbiting it at a distance $`d`$. The typical orbital acceleration is $`a=4\pi ^2d/\tau ^2`$. Suppose initially XOSS and the telescope are at relative rest. We require their relative velocity through a transit to be less than some $`v`$, the smaller $`v`$, the better the expected angular resolution. For a satellite of size $`L`$, the transit duration is $`t=L/v`$, so we need $`at<v`$. In terms of the angular velocity, $`\mu =v/d`$, the constraint is

$$\mu >\frac{\sqrt{aL}}{d}=0.26\sqrt{\left(\frac{L}{10\mathrm{m}}\right)\left(\frac{10^6\mathrm{m}}{d}\right)}\frac{\mathrm{mas}}{\mathrm{s}}.$$
(1)
This is the typical relative angular velocity assuming no orbital adjustments are made. Much smaller relative angular velocities can be achieved. Drifts of $`1\mathrm{m}`$ off the line-of-site can take days, if the relative-velocity perpendicular to the line-of-sight is initially zeroed (using thrusters).

Building XOSS The attenuation length of X-rays in matter is well known (Hagiwara et al., 2002). Except in hydrogen, it is approximately $`3\times 10^4\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at $`1\mathrm{keV}`$, $`10^2\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at $`10\mathrm{keV}`$, and $`0.2\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at $`100\mathrm{keV}`$. At a density of $`3\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$, these represent thicknesses of $`1`$, $`30`$ and $`600`$ microns respectively. An occulter needs to be $`3`$ attenuation lengths thick, and so for a $`10\mathrm{m}`$ square $`1\mathrm{kg}`$ to operate at $`1\mathrm{keV}`$, $`30\mathrm{kg}`$ at $`10\mathrm{keV}`$. Even at $`100\mathrm{keV}`$ a $`3\mathrm{m}\times 3\mathrm{m}`$ lead film three attenuation lengths thick would be only $`60\mathrm{kg}`$.

The ideal size for XOSS depends on the telescope aperture, the accuracy with which one can position the occulter, and the telescope field-of-view (FOV). A typical X-ray aperture, which is the minimum occulter size, is $`1\mathrm{m}`$. Next we estimate how well we can find XOSS’s position relative to the line-of-site. Let $`r`$ be the telescope-XOSS separation. With a diffraction-limited optical telescope of diameter $`d`$ on one spacecraft one can establish the relative position of the other to

$$\delta x<1.2r\frac{\lambda }{d}=0.5\mathrm{m}\frac{r}{1000\mathrm{km}}\frac{\lambda /400\mathrm{nm}}{d/1\mathrm{m}}$$
(2)
$`1\mathrm{m}`$ accuracy at $`1000\mathrm{km}`$ separation therefore requires a $`50\mathrm{cm}`$ finder scope. With isotropic scattering from the target, and a reflecting area of $`1\mathrm{m}^2`$, sunlight results in a flux of $`3\times 10^8/\mathrm{m}^2/\mathrm{s}`$, at $`1000\mathrm{km}`$, suggesting that sufficient light is available to determine relative positions to $`1\mathrm{m}`$ or less.

We must also be able to reduce the spacecrafts’ relative velocity to $`1\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$. In principle, two position determinations each with error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, made a time $`t`$ apart, determine the velocity within $`\mathrm{\Delta }v\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }x/t`$ (assuming no error in $`t`$). The ability to reduce $`|\mathrm{\Delta }v|`$ is then constrained by the precision control on the impulse rockets, and by the maximum time between position determinations. This time is limited by the orbital accelerations, but is sufficiently long ($`10^3\mathrm{s}`$) at L2.

Existing or planned X-ray telescopes that could be used with XOSS have large FOV. If XOSS covers only part of the FOV, the rest will contribute a large background. This can be mitigated by monitoring each telescope resolution element. For Constellation-X with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 15\mathrm{as}`$ this would still require a $`70\mathrm{m}`$ XOSS at $`1000\mathrm{km}`$ separation, though the full resolution element need not be occulted since some background is acceptable. Occulters of this scale have been previously considered (Copi & Starkman, 2000). Still, this provides an important constraint on the size and distance of XOSS; alternatively it suggests that an X-ray telescope with somewhat higher resolution would be a better detector for XOSS.

Steering XOSS To transit multiple sources it will be necessary to accelerate the satellite both to retarget, and to velocity-match. For an areal density of just $`1.5\times 10^3\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (five attenuation lengths as $`1\mathrm{keV}`$), solar radiation pressure causes an acceleration of only $`4\times 10^4\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2`$. All velocity adjustments will therefore require rockets.

A change $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ in the satellite’s velocity is related by momentum conservation to the mass of propellant ejected and the velocity of ejection:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mathrm{sat}}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{propellant}}/m_{\mathrm{sat}}\right)v_{\mathrm{ejection}}$$
(3)
If $`N`$ is the desired number of velocity changes, then we must keep $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{propellant}}m_{\mathrm{sat}}/N`$. Ion engines currently have $`v_{\mathrm{ejection}}30\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$, thus

$$N30\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mathrm{sat}}.$$
(4)
For satellites separated by $`1000\mathrm{km}`$ near L2, relative velocities are only $`v_{\mathrm{sat}}=𝒪(10^4\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s})`$, suggesting that propellant supply is not a concern.

## 3 Resolution

The angular resolution of the XOSS-telescope system will come from probing the lightcurve during a transit. Consider first identifying a binary source. For $`0.5\mathrm{keV}`$ X-rays edge diffraction from XOSS causes oscillations of order $`5\mathrm{cm}`$ in the aperture plane of a telescope $`1000\mathrm{km}`$ away. A 1-m aperture telescope averages over many such oscillations leading to very small deviations from the geometric shadow, which are further reduced at higher energies. Determining the lightcurve therefore reduces to calculating the area of the telescope not shadowed by XOSS. An observation consists of a sequence of measurements of the integrated lightcurve between times $`t_{j1}`$ and $`t_j`$. We would like to find the minimum separation of two sources that can be distinguished from a single source, using such observations. We therefore calculate the probability of misidentifying a binary source as a single source. This probability depends on $`\mu _{}`$, the angular velocity of XOSS as it transits, and on the photon count rate. (Throughout we quote photon rates in the detector, not at the the telescope aperture. The X-ray telescope’s effective area includes both the geometric collecting area and the efficiency of the X-ray detector.) The results for the 95% confidence limits as a function of the intensity in a $`1.2\mathrm{m}`$ aperture telescope for $`\rho =1`$, $`1/3`$, and $`1/10`$ and for $`\mu _{}/(\mathrm{mas}/\mathrm{s})=10`$, $`1`$, and $`0.1`$ are shown in figure 1. In producing figure 1 we assumed a uniform response over the surface of the telescope. A more complicated response function may improve resolution slightly.

This analysis assumed a single transit by a square occulter, yielding only one projection of the source positions. One needs multiple projections to resolve a 2-d source. This could be accomplished by multiple transits, or slits in XOSS tilted to mimic multiple passes in a single transit.

## 4 Image Reconstruction

Several techniques have been applied to image reconstruction from natural eclipses. We have focused on the eclipse mapping method (Baptista & Steiner, 1991). EMM is a maximum entropy technique, thus it can oversmooth the image or introduce spurious sources depending on the weighting between the entropy and the constraints. We have implemented an improved EMM algorithm (Baptista & Steiner, 1993), in which we maximize the quality function

$$Q=S\left[C(\chi ^2)\right]^2/\rho \left[C(R)/\rho \right]^2$$
(5)
where $`S`$ is the entropy, the usual definition of $`\chi ^2`$ is used, $`C(x)=(xx_{\mathrm{aim}})/x_{\mathrm{aim}}`$,

$$R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M1}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{M1}{}}r_jr_{j+1}$$
(6)
measures the correlations in the residuals, and $`\rho `$ controls the weighting between the entropy and the constraints. We anneal in $`\rho `$ from $`100`$ to $`10^4`$, to allow first the entropy to smooth the image then the constraints to sharpen the important features. In practice we tend to oversmooth, leading to a conservative estimate of the attainable resolution.

We modified the EMM algorithm. In the geometric limit, sources contribute to changes in the lightcurve while they are occulted. We therefore give more weight to pixels that are causing the light curve to change. A minimum pixel intensity is chosen; pixels above threshold count fully in the fit while those below the minimum are averaged over. Again we anneal from a high value for this intensity threshold to a low value.

To start the reconstruction we could use a low resolution image. For the test cases considered here we instead bootstrap by initially performing a non-negative least squares fit. Most of the signal is typically placed in a few very bright pixels—to speed up convergence, we presmooth the image with a Gaussian. The smoothing scale must be chosen with some care. Smoothing on the scale of a few pixels worked well for our test cases.

Two test cases have been considered (Fig. 2 panels (a) and (d) contain the original sources). The first contains three Gaussian sources of equal integrated intensity but peak intensities in a 4:2:1 ratio. The second contains filaments radiating from a bright spot. The reconstructions are performed for a $`10^3\gamma /\mathrm{snapshot}`$ source. XOSS moves 1 pixel per snapshot. The square satellite provides information along only 1 direction per transit. Thus we consider (b,e) 4 and (d,f) 16 passes for each reconstruction. To extract maximal information from $`N`$ passes, each pass the occulter travels at an angle $`\theta =\pi /N`$ to the previous pass.

For the Gaussian source the reconstructions are oversmoothed. By 4 passes (b) we can resolve at least two sources; with 16 passes (c) all three sources can be resolved. For the filamentary source the 4 passes (e) reconstruct the bright spot well. With 16 passes (f) the filaments are resolved. Even though the reconstruction technique involves Gaussian smoothing, non-Gaussian structures can be resolved.

## 5 Results

This is an exciting time for X-ray astronomy. The Chandra and XMM telescopes have been inserted into Earth orbit. Other major observatories are being planned for this decade: Astro-E2, and XEUS will enter Earth-orbit, while Constellation X will be placed at L2. MAXIM Pathfinder—the first astronomical X-ray interferometer—may launch between 2008 and 2013 into a drift-away orbit; to be followed eventually by MAXIM. This may seem a remarkable proliferation, but each mission has its own emphasis. Chandra is the only high angular resolution telescope, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 0.5\mathrm{as}`$, and thus has the lowest effective area. The other missions (excepting the interferometers) opt instead for large effective area.

The luminosity of X-ray sources varies greatly. Black holes in the cores of nearby galaxies have

$$_{\mathrm{bh}}10^{38\text{}40}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}=6.2\times 10^{46\text{}48}\mathrm{keV}/\mathrm{s}$$
(7)
in the $`0.2\text{}2.4\mathrm{keV}`$ energy range. This leads to a photon rate at the detector of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bh}}=6.5\times 10^{0\text{}2}\frac{E_{\mathrm{keV}}}{d_{\mathrm{Mpc}}^2A_{1000}}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(8)
where $`E_{\mathrm{keV}}`$ is the X-ray energy in keV, $`d_{\mathrm{Mpc}}`$ is the source distance in Mpc and $`𝒜_{1000}`$ is the effective area of the telescope in units of $`1000\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^2`$. An AGN, Seyfert galaxy, or the core of an X-ray cluster can be much more luminous $`_{\mathrm{AGN}}10^{40\text{}44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$; however, since $`d100\mathrm{Mpc}`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{AGN}}=6.5\times 10^{(2\mathrm{to}+2)}\frac{10^4E_{\mathrm{keV}}}{d_{\mathrm{Mpc}}^2A_{1000}}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(9)
Galactic microquasars are less luminous $`_{\mathrm{microquasar}}10^{39}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$, but, since they are closer

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{microquasar}}=6.5\times 10^5\frac{10^4E_{\mathrm{keV}}}{d_{\mathrm{Mpc}}^2A_{1000}}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(10)
Great improvements in resolution are readily accessible (figure 1). Sub-milliarcsecond resolution can be obtained for sources with photon rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1000\mathrm{s}^1`$. For a single Constellation X module, which will have an effective area of about $`3,750\mathrm{cm}^2`$, the brightest AGNs, X-ray cluster cores, and galactic black holes will have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }200\mathrm{s}^1`$ so we can obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 5\mathrm{mas}`$.

This technique has clearest application to steady sources. The occulter transit time is

$$t_{\mathrm{transit}}=1000\mathrm{s}\left(\frac{F}{\mathrm{as}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{mas}/\mathrm{s}}{\mu }\right),$$
(11)
where $`F`$ is the telescope FOV or resolution, whichever is less. The required source-stability timescale is $`t_{\mathrm{transit}}`$ times the number of passes. Many extragalactic sources are sufficiently stable. These include galaxy clusters, AGNs, quasars, and many X-ray jets; so too are supernovae. Galactic sources, however, often vary more quickly. It may nevertheless be possible to learn something about them using this technique. In particular, optimization of the aperture (e.g. by use of coded masks) may allow us to significantly reduce both the required transit time and the required number of transits to obtain a well-resolved 2-d image.

## 6 Conclusions

We have found that a XOSS can lead to tremendous improvements in angular resolution. The current trend of increasing the effective area of X-ray telescopes at the expense of angular resolution until X-ray interferometry becomes viable, meshes well with the benefits gained by including a XOSS in the mission. For the high Earth-orbit X-ray telescope a moderate improvement in angular resolution over an appreciable fraction of the sky can be achieved through the use of a XOSS, however the orbital mechanics are challenging and the scientific pay-off may be modest. A technology demonstration mission along these lines may nevertheless be worthwhile.

XOSS is potentially most interesting for telescopes at L2 and other low-acceleration environments (e.g. Earth-trailing or drift-away orbits) where $`1`$$`10\mathrm{mas}`$ resolution should be achievable for a wide range of sources. The ideal telescope would have an angular resolution equal to the angle subtended by the XOSS. Further investigations are necessary to determine whether XOSS is well suited to Constellation X, or whether a dedicated telescope with better angular resolution would be merited. Either way, it seems likely that XOSS could provide a natural scientific precursor to interferometric missions like MAXIM Pathfinder, increasing the angular resolution of X-ray telescopes by one-to-two orders-of-magnitude at relatively modest incremental expense.

The authors thank A. Chmielewski for support, A. Babul and M. Dragovan for many useful comments and suggestions, N. Choudhuri for helpful suggestions on statistical tests, P. Gorenstein and W. Zhang for comments on a preliminary version of the manuscript and C. Covault and S. Rodney for recent input. This work was supported by a DOE grant to the theoretical particle-astrophysics group at CWRU, and a phase I grant from NIAC.


text:
# Saturation of the production of quantum entanglement between weakly coupled mapping systems in strongly chaotic region

## Abstract

The production of quantum entanglement between weakly coupled mapping systems, whose classical counterparts are both strongly chaotic, is investigated. In the weak coupling regime, it is shown that time correlation functions of the unperturbed systems determine the entanglement production. In particular, we elucidate that the increment of nonlinear parameter of coupled kicked tops does not accelerate the entanglement production in the strongly chaotic region. An approach to the dynamical inhibition of entanglement is suggested.

In a quantum composite system, even if the subsystems are remotely separated and the whole system is in a pure state, the subsystems generically have a nonclassical correlation EPR-Bell . This striking phenomena is called quantum entanglement Schroedinger:PCPS-31-555 , which is utilized not only to achieve the procedures that have no classical analogs (e.g. quantum information processing QIP ), but also to realize the “classical world” in which quantum interference phenomena are “decohered” as a result of quantum dynamics Decoherence . Even when there is no quantum entanglement between subsystems, a weak interaction between the subsystems generally produces the quantum entanglement during unitary time evolutions Kubler:AP-76-1973 . This is an important dynamical origin of decoherence Decoherence .

Through a number of numerical experiments, it is known that the productions of entanglements induced by quantum dynamics heavily depend on the qualitative nature of the corresponding classical dynamics, namely, regular or chaotic Adachi:1992 ; Tanaka:JPA-29-5475 ; Sakagami:PTP-95-703 ; Miller:PRE-60-1542 , as is easily expected from the studies of “quantum chaos” Gutzwiller:CCQM-1990 . On one hand, in classically regular systems, the confinement of phase-space dynamics in a narrow region enclosed by KAM tori make it difficult to produce strong entanglements in general RegularException . On the other hand, the absence of such dynamical barriers in classically chaotic systems promotes the production of entanglement. Although there are quantum effects on the phase-space dynamics, e.g. tunnelings and localizations Localizations , in both regular and chaotic systems, it is confirmed that the scenario above qualitatively holds Adachi:1992 ; Tanaka:JPA-29-5475 ; Sakagami:PTP-95-703 ; Miller:PRE-60-1542 .

This motivates the next question: In the chaotic region, does stronger chaos enhance the production of entanglement? Looking for an analogy of a study on quantum open systems Zurek:PRL-72-2508 , Miller and Sarkar obtained a numerical result that suggests the linear instability of classical dynamics enhances the production of entanglement Miller:PRE-60-1542 . Their numerical experiment however concerns only in the weakly chaotic region where chaotic seas and tori coexist. The complexity of phase-space dynamics is the source of the difficulty to obtain a theoretical explanation for the Miller and Sarkar’s result.

Our aim is to provide a theoretical argument of entanglement production in weakly coupled chaotic systems. In contrast to the Miller and Sarkar’s work, we focus on the strongly chaotic region where the effect of tori is small, to facilitate to obtain a theoretical explanation. Starting from separable pure states, we examine the productions of quantum entanglement due to unitary time evolutions. The entanglement production processes are slow due to the weak coupling. Furthermore, the recurrence time of classically chaotic systems is relatively long. Hence, the entanglement production processes are nearly stationary processes, at least, in a short time period. This enables us to introduce an entanglement production rate. We investigate how the entanglement production rate depends on the nonlinear parameter below.

Our numerical experiments employ coupled kicked tops Miller:PRE-60-1542 . Firstly, we introduce their constituent, a kicked top Haake:ZPB-65-381 , which is described by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_k\pi \widehat{J}_y/2+\mathrm{\Delta }(t)k\widehat{J}_z^2/(2j)`$, where $`\widehat{J}_i`$ is the $`i`$-th component of the angular momentum operator of the top, $`j`$ is the magnitude of the angular momentum, $`k`$ is a nonlinear parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)_n\delta (tn)`$ is a “periodic delta function”. Secondly, we employ the following Hamiltonian to describe the whole system that is composed of two kicked tops:

$$\widehat{H}\widehat{H}_{k_1}\widehat{1}+\widehat{1}\widehat{H}_{k_2}+ϵ\widehat{V}\mathrm{\Delta }(t)$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is a coupling constant, $`\widehat{V}\widehat{J}_{1z}\widehat{J}_{2z}/j`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian, and $`J_{iz}`$ is the $`J_z`$ of the $`i`$-th top. We report the case that the magnitudes of the angular momenta of the two subsystems are the same value, $`j`$.

Since we focus on the case where the total system is in a pure state, our choice of a measure of quantum entanglement between the two subsystems, is the von Neumann entropy $`S_{\mathrm{vN}}`$ of the first subsystem EntanglementMeasure . Note that the von Neumann entropy of the second subsystems is equal to the one of the first subsystem, when the total system is in a pure state. At the same time, we employ the linear entropy $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}`$ instead of $`S_{\mathrm{vN}}`$, to facilitate theoretical arguments. In our numerical experiments, these entropies behave qualitatively similarly.

We examine the productions of quantum entanglements, by observing $`S_{\mathrm{vN}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}`$, during unitary time evolutions whose initial states are product (i.e. separable) states. A typical result in the strongly chaotic region is shown in Fig. 1: When the coupling constant $`ϵ`$ is small, there is a $`t`$-linear entanglement production region, which is wide enough to call it “stationary” entanglement production. Note that during the stationary entanglement production, the state vectors of the subsystems are spread over the phase space of the subsystems (Fig. 2). In other words, the phase space distribution of each subsystem is nearly in “equilibrium”. We accordingly expect that the each subsystem plays a role of a chaotic “heat bath” of its partner Adachi:PRL-61-659 . The $`t`$-linear entanglement production region starts at a time step $`T^{}`$, after a short transient to attain the equilibrium of the phase space distribution of the subsystems, and ends at a time step $`T^{\prime \prime }`$, until the increment of the entropy reaches its equilibrium (see Fig. 1, larger $`ϵ`$).

In order to explain the $`t`$-linear, stationary entanglement production, we employ a time-dependent perturbation theory, whose small parameter is a coupling constant $`ϵ`$, to evaluate the linear entropy $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(t)`$ at $`t`$-th step. The resultant formula is

$$S_{\mathrm{lin}}^{\mathrm{PT}}(t)=S_0\underset{m=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{t}{}}D(m,n)$$
(2)
where $`S_02ϵ^2j^2`$, and $`D(m,n)`$ is a time-correlation function of the uncoupled system. Furthermore, since the interaction Hamiltonian $`\widehat{V}`$ takes a bilinear form, $`D(m,n)`$ is decomposed as follows

$$D(m,n)C_1(m,n)C_2(m,n)$$
(3)
where $`C_i(m,n)j^2(\widehat{J}_{iz}^m\widehat{J}_{iz}^n\widehat{J}_{iz}^m\widehat{J}_{iz}^n)`$ is a normalized correlation functions of $`\widehat{J}_{iz}^n`$, which is evolved by the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H|_{ϵ=0}`$ until $`n`$-th steps, with an initial condition $`\widehat{J}_{iz}^0=\widehat{J}_{iz}`$, and the expectation value $``$ is respect to the unperturbed system. The details to obtain the formula (2) will be shown elsewhere FMT020 .

We remark on the entanglement production formula (2): (i) Although we start form the evaluation of the entropy of a subsystem, the formula (2) is in a symmetric form with respect to the exchange of the two subsystems. This is consistent with the symmetric nature of quantum entanglement when the whole system is in a pure state; (ii) Since our approach does not take into account the effect of the recurrence, the formula (2) would have qualitatively different applicability to the classically regular and chaotic systems. On one hand, for classically regular systems, our theory would break down in relatively short time period, due to the smallness of the period of the recurrence. On the other hand, for chaotic systems, we numerically confirmed that our theory works rather long time period; (iii) Our formula has a similarity with the ones in phenomenological descriptions of linear irreversible processes Kubo1985 , in the sense that these theories use time correlation functions to describe relaxation phenomena. This is useful both for discussing phenomenological arguments and for making a link with a phenomenological theory and a microscopic theory Kubo1985 .

Before applying the formula (2) numerically, let us confirm that the time correlation function $`D(m,n)`$, which is the most important ingredient of the formula (2), strongly depends on the dynamics of the classical counterparts (Fig. 3). On one hand, in the regular case, $`D(m,n)`$ decays slowly with large oscillations, as the time interval $`|mn|`$ become large. On the other hand, the chaotic dynamics makes the decay of $`D(m,n)`$ much faster. Such a rapid convergence of the correlation function, together with the formula (2), implies the $`t`$-linear, stationary entanglement production region (see Fig. 1).

The perturbation formula (2) provides an approximate estimation of the entanglement production rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the $`t`$-linear, stationary entanglement production region:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PT}}S_0\frac{1}{T^{\prime \prime }T^{}}\underset{m=T^{}}{\overset{T^{\prime \prime }}{}}\underset{n=T^{}}{\overset{T^{\prime \prime }}{}}D(m,n)$$
(4)
where $`T^{}`$ and $`T^{\prime \prime }`$ are the start and the end of the $`t`$-linear entanglement production region, respectively. In the strongly chaotic region, where the effect of tori is small, it is possible to give an analytical estimation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PT}}`$ (4). Since $`D(m,n)`$ is the product of the fluctuations of $`J_{iz}`$, whose distribution functions become quickly uniform due to the chaotic dynamics (see Fig. 2), we assume that $`D(m,n)`$ decays exponentially

$$D(m,n)=D_0\mathrm{exp}(\gamma |mn|)$$
(5)
The prefactor $`D_0`$ is determined by the magnitude of the fluctuations of $`J_{1z}`$ and $`J_{2z}`$, whose distribution functions are almost uniform in strongly chaotic systems (see Fig. 2). We accordingly assume $`D_0=(1/3)^2`$, which is independent of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. Furthermore, it is natural to expect that the decay rate $`\gamma `$ of $`D(m,n)`$ increase as the degree of chaos of the classical counterpart becomes stronger (i.e., as the values of nonlinear parameters $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ increase), when the effect of tori is negligibly small, although we could not obtain a precise nonlinear parameter dependence of $`\gamma `$ due to the fact that the decay is very fast (within a step) in the strongly chaotic region (see Fig. 3 (b)).

As long as the $`t`$-linear region is wide enough, i.e. $`T^{\prime \prime }T^{}\gamma ^1`$, the exponential decay assumption (5) provides an estimation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PT}}S_0D_0\mathrm{coth}(\gamma /2).$$
(6)
This provides our main result: in the limit that the classical counterpart is the strongly chaotic, i.e. in the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the perturbation theory (2) predicts that the entanglement production rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ converges to a finite value. Furthermore, the convergence is expected to be fast, when $`\gamma `$ is larger than unity. Our main claim is that the effect of the enhancement of entanglement due to chaotic dynamics saturates in the strongly chaotic region, in contrast with the weakly chaotic systems Tanaka:JPA-29-5475 ; Sakagami:PTP-95-703 ; Miller:PRE-60-1542 . This prediction is confirmed by our numerical experiments (Fig. 4). We explain the reason why the strongly chaotic systems have smaller entanglement production rates, in comparison with the weakly chaotic systems. As the chaos becomes stronger, the correlation time scale of the interaction Hamiltonian $`\widehat{V}`$, which is evolved by the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ in the interaction picture, becomes shorter. Hence, due to the dynamical averaging, the influence of $`\widehat{V}`$ is effectively reduced. Consequently, the entanglement production rate is also reduced. In particular, when the chaos is strong enough, the effect of the perturbation on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PT}}`$ (6) comes only from the “diagonal” part $`D(n,n)`$. This is the origin of the saturation at large $`k`$ (Fig. 4).

We make a brief remark on our result, in correspondence with the existing publications that suggests the entanglement production rate is proportional to the Lyapunov exponent of the classical counterpart (i.e., chaos promotes quantum entanglement) Miller:PRE-60-1542 ; Zurek:PRL-72-2508 . Firstly, although our model system in the numerical experiments is the same as Miller and Sarkar’s workMiller:PRE-60-1542 , the result is qualitatively different. The difference comes from the different “strength” of chaos. In contrast with the strongly chaotic systems, the entanglement productions of the weakly chaotic systems are significantly influenced by the existence of tori. A crudest explanation is provided by the perturbation formula (6): During the chaos is not fully developed, a large portion of the phase space is occupied by tori. This reduces $`D_0`$, which is the magnitude of the fluctuation of the interaction $`\widehat{V}`$. Accordingly, as the chaos become stronger in weakly chaotic region, the development of chaos increases $`D_0`$. This results in the increment of the entanglement production rate. In the strongly chaotic region, the growth of $`D_0`$ saturates due to the breakdown of tori and $`\gamma `$ takes a major role in the parametric variation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{PT}}`$ (6). Secondly, we compare our result with Zurek and Paz’s work on open systems Zurek:PRL-72-2508 , since the each subsystem in our numerical experiment acts as “heat bath” of its partner. The most important difference comes from the fact that the two works focus on completely different region, far before (Zurek and Paz) and far after (ours) the Ehrenfest time (see, Fig. 2).

We expect that our result on the saturation of entanglement between weakly coupled systems is generic, in strongly chaotic systems with a “compact” phase space that allows the assumption (5). However, we note that our result (6) heavily depends on the fact that the system is a discrete-time system, i.e. a mapping system.

Finally, we discuss an extension of our result to flow systems. It is straightforward to obtain a perturbative estimation of entanglement production rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\gamma `$, which implies the suppression of the entanglement productions in the strongly chaotic limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. This is completely opposite to the case in the weakly chaotic region Adachi:1992 ; Tanaka:JPA-29-5475 ; Sakagami:PTP-95-703 ; Miller:PRE-60-1542 . More thorough investigations on this point will be reported in subsequent publications. We remark that a similar suppression of quantum relaxation due to strong chaos is reported by Prosen Prosen:PRE-65-036208 , in a perturbative evaluations of fidelity, which is an overlapping integral between the two states evolved by slightly different Hamiltonians. As is discussed in Prosen:JPA-34-L681 , it is hopeful that the suppression of quantum relaxations due to strongly chaotic dynamics will have various application. In particular, our scenario, which suggests an approach of the dynamical inhibition of entanglement, will also provide important applications to quantum communications and computations, which require the protections against decoherence QIP ; Prosen:JPA-34-L681 .

###### Acknowledgements.

H. F. thanks T. Takami and H. Kamisaka for discussion. A. T. thanks Professor A. Shudo for useful conversations.


text:
# Shadowing high-dimensional Hamiltonian systems: the gravitational 𝑛-body problem

## Abstract

A shadow is an exact solution to a chaotic system of equations that remains close to a numerically computed solution for a long time, ending in a glitch. We study the distribution of shadow durations at low dimension and how shadow durations scale as dimension increases up to 300 in a slightly simplified gravitational $`n`$-body system. We find that “softened” systems are shadowable for many tens of crossing times even for large $`n`$, while in an “unsoftened” system each particle encounters glitches independently as a Poisson process, giving shadow durations that scale as $`1/n`$.

preprint: APS/123-QED

The behaviour of dynamical systems is often studied using numerical techniques. A source of error in such studies arises because dynamical systems often display sensitive dependence on initial conditions: two solutions whose initial conditions differ by an arbitrarily small amount generally diverge exponentially away from each other. Since numerical methods introduce errors, it is virtually guaranteed that a numerically computed solution diverges exponentially away from the exact solution with the same initial conditions. This remains true even if integrals of motion such as energy and momentum are conserved to arbitrary precision. Although this fact is widely known, its impact is not well understood.

Fortunately, most studies of dynamical systems do not aim to predict the precise evolution of a particular choice of initial conditions. Instead, the dynamics of the system is sampled in order to study its general behaviour. In such cases, we typically choose initial conditions from a random distribution and would be happy if our numerical solution exhibited behaviour typical of any valid choice of initial conditions from our distribution. In particular, we may be satisfied if our numerical solution closely follows some exact solution whose initial conditions are close to those that we chose.

The study of shadowing provides just such a property: a shadow is an exact solution to a given set of equations that remains close to a numerically computed solution of the same set of equations for a nontrivial duration of time. Although not all numerical simulations are likely to be shadowable Dawson et al. (3 Oct 1994); Sauer et al. (7 July 1997); Sauer (2002), the existence of a shadow is a strong property: it asserts that a numerical solution can be viewed as an experimental observation of an exact solution. As such, within the “observational” error, the dynamics observed in a numerical solution that has a shadow represent the dynamics of an exact solution. There are only two remaining questions (both beyond the scope of this paper): (1) Whether the mathematical model being simulated accurately reflects the system being studied. This is certainly not the case for systems such as the weather (and thus shadowing is probably an inappropriate measure of error), but can be assumed to be the case for others, such as the unsoftened gravitational $`n`$-body problem. (2) Whether shadows are typical of exact solutions chosen at random. Simple examples exist of shadows that are atypical Farmer and Sidorowich (1991); Fryska and Zohdy (1992); Corless (1994), although it seems unlikely that atypical shadows are common — lest the numerical solutions we compute would be commonly atypical as well 111This question is not unique to shadowing. For example, even though a symplectic integrator applied to a Hamiltonian problem exactly solves a nearby Hamiltonian problem Wisdom and Holman (1992), we could ask if the exactly solved problem is typical of nearby Hamiltonian problems of interest..

Shadows of “noisy” trajectories were first proved to exist in hyperbolic systems Anosov (1967); Bowen (1975). Such systems possess a phase space which is spanned locally by an independent set of stable and unstable directions that remain consistent under the evolution of the system. Few chaotic dynamical systems are globally hyperbolic, but for those that are nearly hyperbolic over finite time intervals, the existence of finite-duration shadows can often be inferred Grebogi et al. (1990); Quinlan and Tremaine (1992) or rigorously proved Grebogi et al. (1990); Coomes et al. (1995); Hayes (2001). If a shadow is viewed as a measure of error of a numerical solution, then the relevent measures are the phase-space distance between corresponding points on the “noisy” and exact trajectories (smaller is better), and the duration over which they remain close together (longer is better). Generally, the smaller the local error in the trajectory, and the more hyperbolic the trajectory, the closer and longer the shadow Quinlan and Tremaine (1992). In Dawson et al. (3 Oct 1994); Sauer et al. (7 July 1997); Sauer (2002), scaling laws were developed for the expected duration of shadows, based upon the distance from zero of finite-time Lyapunov exponents of the system. If an exponent fluctuates about zero over a trajectory, it represents a tangential direction that is uncertain between stable and unstable. This effect, also called unstable dimension variability Lai et al. (1999), is the cause of unshadowability in chaotic systems. If a numerical trajectory is unshadowable, then it is possible (though far from certain) that statistical quantities associated with the numerical trajectory can have significant bias Fryska and Zohdy (1992); Corless (1994); Sauer (2002).

To date, most studies of shadowability of chaotic systems have focussed on maps or ODEs with only a few dimensions, and concern has been expressed that fluctuating Lyapunov exponents may be common in high-dimensional systems Dawson et al. (3 Oct 1994); Sauer et al. (7 July 1997); Sauer (2002). Furthermore, since Hamiltonian systems are not globally hyperbolic, there is no reason to expect them to be easily shadowable. In this paper, we demonstrate that trajectories of at least one commonly integrated continuous Hamiltonian system (the softened gravitational $`n`$-body problem) are shadowable for long times with as many as 150 phase-space dimensions (25 particles). We also demonstrate that, for the purpose of shadowing, a large $`n`$-body system can be viewed as a superposition of many small systems, so that the distribution of shadow durations for a high-dimensional $`n`$-body system can be approximated using the distribution of shadow durations of many low-dimensional systems.

The trajectories that we will attempt to shadow belong to a slightly simplified gravitational $`n`$-body problem in which there are $`N`$ total particles, only $`M`$ of which move. We do this because the shadowing algorithm we use takes time $`O(M^3)`$ and we want to simulate a large system with a complex potential while keeping the time to compute a shadow tractable. Each moving particle interacts both with fixed particles and with other moving particles via Newton’s gravitational force law,

$$F_{ij}=\frac{Gm_im_j}{r_{ij}^2+\epsilon ^2},$$

where $`F_{ij}`$ is the force on particle $`i`$ from particle $`j`$, $`m_i`$ and $`m_j`$ are their masses, $`r_{ij}`$ is the distance between them, and $`\epsilon `$ is the gravitational softening parameter which, if non-zero, artificially smoothens the gravitational potential in order to approximately emulate a system with more particles than are actually present and to avoid the singularity at $`r_{ij}=0`$. We use normalized units Heggie and Mathieu (1986) in which each particle has mass $`1/N`$, the system has diameter of order unity, and the crossing time (the average time for a particle to cross the system from one side to the other) is of order unity. We use a variable-order, variable timestep integrator Hindmarsh (1980) for all integrations. We generate noisy trajectories with local errors of about $`10^5`$ per crossing time. To find shadows, we use an algorithm described in Quinlan and Tremaine (1992), optimized to run between two and three orders of magnitude faster. Called iterative refinement, we use the same integrator as the noisy trajectory with tighter tolerance to estimate the full phase-space vector of local errors of the noisy trajectory, and then use a Newton-like correction to refine the trajectory until it has local errors as small as possible. For simple systems, the errors of the refined trajectory can be as small as the machine precision ($`10^{16}`$), but the minimum local error acheivable with refinement increases as the number of dimensions increases, due to numerical errors in computing the Newton corrections. A trajectory produced by refinement is called a numerical shadow. The existence of a numerical shadow is expected to indicate the existence of an exact shadow of comparable duration Quinlan and Tremaine (1992).

A system with parameters $`N=100,M=1,\epsilon =0`$ was first shadowed by Quinlan and Tremaine (1992), who found that the single particle can be shadowed for a few tens of crossing times, and that glitches (the point beyond which a shadow cannot be found) tend to occur more frequently during close approaches with other particles. Combined with the fact that close approaches occur as a stochastic process Spitzer Jr. (1987), we hypothesized that glitches also occur as a stochastic process. Fig. 1 shows a histogram of shadow durations for 1000 $`M=1`$ systems. The distribution is well-fit by an exponential curve, suggesting that glitches are encountered as a Poisson process in an unsoftened system. This is moderately surprising because it says that the number of crossing times that have occured in the past has little influence on the occurance of a glitch in the future, and thus there is in principle no natural upper limit on the duration of a shadow.

The robustness of our shadowing algorithm with increasing problem dimension was tested in two ways. First, we contrived a slightly nonlinear Hamiltonian system designed to be easily shadowable (i.e., almost hyperbolic), and successfully shadowed it for 20–50 Lyapunov times on average while the dimension was increased from 2 to 180. Second, we searched for shadows of gravitational systems similar to the above consisting of $`99+M`$ particles in which the $`M`$ moving particles interact only with the 99 fixed particles. Such a system is equivalent to superimposing $`M`$ uncoupled single-particle systems, and it will encounter glitches as a Poisson process with an aggregate rate $`M`$ times that of a single-particle system. This results in average shadow durations that scale as $`1/M`$. This was in fact observed in our simulations, giving us confidence that our shadowing algorithm works as well for large $`M`$ as it does for small $`M`$.

Fig. 2 demonstrates that the scaling is still $`1/M`$ even if the $`M`$ moving particles interact. This is moderately surprising because it suggests that although particles interact in motion, they do not interact in glitching. A possible explanation is that if $`1<MN`$, then the coupling between the $`M`$ moving particles is weak on average and we can still view the system as the superposition of $`M`$ single-particle systems222The weak coupling assumption is broken when a close approach between two moving particles occurs, but since it is likely to cause a glitch anyway, and our argument need only apply until a glitch occurs, the assumption holds during the time interval we need it to hold.. Furthermore, we note that the cross-section for close approaches is not altered as $`M`$ increases (which simply changes fixed particles into moving ones), so the argument still holds independent of whether $`MN`$.

With non-zero softening, Quinlan and Tremaine (1992) found that shadow durations increased significantly, while the correllation between glitches and close approaches decreased. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of shadow durations for 250 $`M=1`$ systems in which softening has been set to $`\epsilon =0.1`$, which is approximately half the average inter-particle separation. The differences from Fig. 1 are quite marked. First, the distribution is peaked near 100 crossing times and has a long tail going out to hundreds of crossing times. Second, even though the local errors of the noisy and shadow orbits are identical to those from Fig. 1, the average shadow length has increased by more than an order of magnitude from 14 to 218. Although this is roughly equivalent to the increase in the Lyapunov timescale Quinlan and Tremaine (1992), the distribution is far from exponential. In fact, the most striking difference from Fig. 1 is that the distribution has a vanishingly small density near zero shadow duration, in striking contrast to a Poisson process. In other words, virtually no particles undergo glitches until several tens of crossing times have occurred. If this remains true even for $`M>1`$, then shadowing of softened gravitational systems would be feasible even for large $`M`$, because the trajectories of all particles in the simulation would remain valid for many crossing times. This question is addressed in Fig. 4, where we plot the average shadow duration for softened systems as a function of $`M`$, along with the shadow duration predicted by superimposing $`M`$ single-particle systems. We see that although the duration of shadows for coupled systems decreases as $`M`$ increases, they decrease much more slowly than $`1/M`$, and appear to be levelling off at about 50 crossing times. This is consistent with superimposing single-particle trajectories all of which have shadows that last several tens of crossing times, although it is surprising that the shadow durations are slightly longer than that predicted by superimposing single-particle trajectories. Now, if particles encounter glitches largely independently of one another, and shadow durations for softened systems are long for most particles, then we can hypothesize that reasonable statistical results may be acquired from long simulations of large softened systems as long as only a small number of particles have undergone glitches, and the statistics taken depend on large numbers of particles. Thus, for example, the global spatial distribution of matter in a simulated galaxy may be correct, but the number of escapers from a simulated globular cluster may be incorrect if the stars that escape happen also to be the stars that underwent glitches before escaping.

The difference between the shadow durations for softened vs. unsoftened systems undoubtedly is related to fluctuating Lyapunov exponents as discussed in Dawson et al. (3 Oct 1994); Sauer et al. (7 July 1997); Sauer (2002). Although we have not measured Lyapunov exponents explicitly, we measured a related quantity, namely the expansion and contraction factors across a timestep of the vectors that span the locally expanding and contracting spaces. In a uniformly hyperbolic system, these factors will always be greater and less than 1, respectively. An event of “non-hyperbolicity” can be observed by looking for areas along the trajectory where directions which were previously expanding over long periods instead start to contract, or vice versa. If we plot the expansion and contraction amounts along a trajectory, we find that “non-hyperbolic” events correllate well with the occurence glitches 333Note that we did not observe any obvious neutral directions, which is moderately surprising given that Hamiltonian systems are not hyperbolic.. If we plot an $`M=1`$ particle orbit in three dimensions, we also observe that these events loosely correllate with times when the particle’s orbital geometry changes in an obvious way. We postulate that the locally expanding and contracting directions of a particle in the system are closely related to the geometry of the particle’s orbit, so that changing the geometry of the orbit can cause these local vectors to become inconsistent as time progresses. In an unsoftened system, the geometry of a particle’s orbit can be suddenly and violently changed by a close encounter. In softened systems, however, there is no precise, short-duration “event” which triggers non-hyperbolicity; instead, the geometry of the orbit of a particle changes slowly, so that many crossing times occur before a glitch is likely. This helps to explain Figs. 1 and 3.

In conclusion, we postulate that there is no feasible integration accuracy which will produce long shadows in unsoftened gravitational $`n`$-body simulations. This does not necessarily mean that such simulations should not be trusted, only that shadowing may be too stringent a measure of error. In contrast, we believe that there does exist a feasible integration accuracy for which softened systems are shadowable for many crossing times even for large $`n`$. Given the stark dependence of shadow duration on the softening parameter, however, we suspect that until a better understanding is acquired, the shadowability of physical simulations in general will need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The author’s software Hayes (1995) is available on request.

Acknowledgments: We thank Scott Tremaine, Ken Jackson, and James Yorke for thoughtful discussions on this work, and the University of Toronto’s Computing Disciplines Facility for cluster computer time. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Information Technology Research Centre of Ontario.


text:
# Mod. Phys. Lett. A8, No.31, 2989-2999 (1993) A new example of N=2 supersymmetric Landau-Ginzburg theories: the two-ring case

## Abstract

The new example of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Landau-Ginzburg theories is considered when the critical values of the superpotential $`w(x)`$ form the regular two-ring configuration. It is shown that at the deformation, which does not change the form of this configuration, the vacuum state metric satisfies the equation of non-Abelian $`2\times 2`$ Toda system.

In  the authors have considered $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Landau-Ginzburg theories and have showed that in many cases the metric for supersymmetric ground states for special deformations of this metric satisfies the certain system of PDE’s, such as Toda equations. For further development related to the theory see , .

In the note  two new examples of such theories were considered. The purpose of this letter is to give an additional example of such theories. Namely we will show here that the two-ring case gives instead of the standard Toda system, the so-called non-Abelian $`2\times 2`$ Toda system.

1. Let us remind first of all some basic facts from $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Landau-Ginzburg theory (for more details see ). The basic quantities here are the chiral fields $`\varphi _i`$, the vacuum state $`|0>`$ and the states

$$|j>=\varphi _j|0>.$$
(1)
The action of $`\varphi _j`$ on this state gives

$$\varphi _i|j>=\varphi _i\varphi _j|0>=C_{ij}^k\varphi _k|0>=C_{ij}^k|k>.$$
(2)
So the action of the chiral field $`\varphi _i`$ in the subsector of vacuum states is given by the matrix $`(C_i)_j^k=C_{ij}^k`$. Analogously, we have anti-chiral fields $`\varphi _{\overline{i}}`$ and the states $`|\overline{j}>`$. So we may define two metric tensors

$$\eta _{ij}=<j|i>$$
(3)
and

$$g_{i\overline{j}}=<\overline{j}|i>,$$
(4)
which should satisfy the condition

$$\eta ^1g(\eta ^1g)^{}=1.$$
(5)
The theory is determined by the superpotential $`w(x_j)`$ which is holomorphic function of complex variables $`x_i`$. The superpotential completely determines the chiral ring

$$=𝐂[x_i]/_iw$$
(6)
and we may also determine the metric $`\eta _{ij}`$ by the formula

$$\eta _{ij}=<i|j>=\text{Res}_w[\varphi _i\varphi _j],$$
(7)
where

$$\text{Res}_w[\varphi ]=\underset{dw=0}{}\varphi (x)H^1(x);H=\text{det}(_i_jw).$$
(8)
As for the metric $`g_{i\overline{j}}`$, then, as was shown in , it should satisfy the zero-curvature conditions

$$\overline{}_i(g_jg^1)[C_j,g(C_i)^+g^1]=0,$$
(9)
$$_iC_j_jC_i+[g(_ig^1),C_j][g(_jg^1),C_i]=0.$$
(10)
Note also that the metric $`g_{ij}`$ should satisfy the “reality constraint”

$$\eta ^1g(\eta ^1g)^{}=1.$$
(11)
2. Let us begin to describe the system. As for the superpotential $`w(x)`$ we take

$$w(x)=t\left(\frac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}+2c\frac{x^{n+1}}{n+1}x\right).$$
(12)
Then

$$w^{}(x)=t\left(x^{2n}+2cx^n1\right).$$
(13)
So the zeros of $`w^{}(x)`$ are located on two rings

$$w^{}(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(xa_j)\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(xb_j),$$
(14)
where

$$a_j=a\omega ^j,b_j=b\omega ^j\epsilon $$
(15)
$$\omega =\mathrm{exp}\frac{2i\pi }{n},\epsilon =\mathrm{exp}\frac{i\pi }{n},a<b,ab=1,b^na^n=2c.$$
(16)
So the chiral ring take the form

$$=𝐂[x]/w^{}(x)=𝐂[x]/(x^{2n}+2cx^n1),$$
(17)
so that

$$w^{\prime \prime }(x)=nx^{n1}\left[(x^n+b^n)+(x^na^n)\right]$$
(18)
and

$$w^{\prime \prime }(a_j)=\alpha a_j^1,w^{\prime \prime }(b_j)=\beta b_j^1$$
(19)
with

$$\alpha =na^n\left(a^n+b^n\right),\beta =nb^n\left(a^n+b^n\right).$$
(20)
3. Now using (8) we can calculate the metric tensor

$$\eta _{ij}=<i|j>.$$
(21)
We have

$`\text{Res}_w(x^k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{dw=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^k}{w^{\prime \prime }(x)}}={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_j^{k+1}}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_j^{k+1}}{\beta }}\right)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{k+1}}{\alpha }}+(1)^{\frac{k+1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{k+1}}{\beta }}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(\omega ^j)^{k+1}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}n(k+1),\hfill \\ \frac{a^{k+1n}+(1)^{(k+1)/n}b^{k+1n}}{t(a^n+b^n)}\hfill & \text{if}n|(k+1).\hfill \end{array}`$
So for $`0i2n1,0j2n1`$ we have

$$\text{Res}_w(x^{i+j})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}n(i+j+1),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}(i+j+1)=n,\hfill \\ 1/t\hfill & \text{if}(i+j+1)=2n,\hfill \\ (2c)/t\hfill & \text{if}(i+j+1)=3n\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
and the matrix $`\eta _{ij}`$ in the basis $`\sqrt{t}\{1,x,\mathrm{},x^{2n1}\}`$ takes the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& J\\ J& 2cJ\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
where $`J`$ is the $`n\times n`$ matrix

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
4. Structure of Chiral Algebra. Note first at all that since

$$x^{2n}+2cx^n1=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(xa_j)(xb_j),$$
(28)
where $`a_0,\mathrm{},a_{n1},b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$ are distinct, we have the C-algebra isomorphism

$$=𝐂[x]/\left(x^{2n}+2cx^n1\right)\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}𝐂[x]/(xa_j)\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}𝐂[x]/(xb_j)$$
(29)
(by the Chinese Reminder Theorem).

Let $`\delta _j,\delta _j^{}(j=0,\mathrm{},n1)`$ be the elements in $``$

$`\delta _j`$ $``$ $`(0,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{a_j}},0,\mathrm{},0),{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{a_j}}𝐂[x]/(xa_j),`$
$`\delta _j^{}`$ $``$ $`(0,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{b_j}},\mathrm{},0),{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{b_j}}𝐂[x]/(xb_j).`$
Then $`\{\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{n1},\delta _0^{},\mathrm{},\delta _{n1}^{}\}`$ is a basis of $``$, and its relation with the monomial basis $`\{1,x,\mathrm{},x^{2n1}\}`$ is given by the formula

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^{2n1}\end{array}\right)$$

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ a& a\omega & \mathrm{}& & bϵ& bϵ\omega & \mathrm{}& bϵ\omega ^{n1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a^{2n1}& a^{2n1}\omega ^{2n1}& \mathrm{}& & b^{2n1}ϵ^{2n1}& & \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _0\\ \delta _1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \delta _{n1}\\ \delta _0^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \delta _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(31)
Therefore the topological-topological coupling with respect to basis $`\{\sqrt{t}(\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{n1},\delta _0^{},\mathrm{},\delta _{n1}^{})\}`$ is given by formula

$$\frac{1}{n(a^n+b^n)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^{(n1)}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \omega & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \omega ^{n1}\end{array}\right)& 0\\ 0& b^{(n1)}ϵ\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \omega & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \omega ^{n1}\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
5. Lemma.

The group of C-algebra automorphisms of $``$ is generated by the transformation

$$\theta :x\omega x.$$
(33)
Hence,

$$\theta :\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^{2n1}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& & 0\\ 0& \omega & & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& & \omega ^{n1}\end{array}\right)& 0\\ 0& \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& & 0\\ 0& \omega & & 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& & \omega ^{n1}\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^{2n1}\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
$$\theta :\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _0\\ \delta _1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \delta _0^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \delta _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\end{array}\right)& 0\\ 0& \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta _0\\ \delta _1\\ \mathrm{}\\ \delta _0^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \delta _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
Let us go now to the consideration of topological-antitopological couplings $`(g_{i\overline{j}})`$. As was shown in ref.  this matrix should satisfy the equation

$$\overline{}(gg^1)[C,gC^+g^1]=0$$
(36)
and the reality constraint

$$\eta ^1g(\eta ^1g)^{}=1.$$
(37)
Note first of all that in the ring $``$ we have

$$w=t\left(\frac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}+2c\frac{x^{2n+1}}{n+1}x\right)=\frac{2nt}{2n+1}\left(x\frac{c}{n+1}x^{n+1}\right).$$
(38)
Then, for the multiplication up to $`x`$ in the basis $`\{\sqrt{t},\sqrt{t}x,\mathrm{},\sqrt{t}x^{2n1}\}`$ there corresponds the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& 1& & & & & \\ & 0& 1& & & & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & \\ & & & & 1& & \\ & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ 1& & & & (2c)& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
and for the multiplication up to $`x^{n+1}`$ there corresponds the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & & & 0& 1& & \\ & & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & & & & 1\\ 1& & & & (2c)& & & 0\\ 0& 1& & & 0& 2c& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & & 1& & & & 2c\\ (2c)& & & 0& (1+4c^2)& & & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(40)
Hence the matrix $`C`$ in this basis has the form

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& 1& & & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ & & 0& 1& & & & \\ & & & 0& 1& & & \\ & & & & 0& 1& & \\ & & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ 1& & & & (2c)& & & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (48)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{n+1}}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & & & 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ 1& & & & (2c)& & & 1\\ 0& 1& & & & (2c)& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & 1& 0& & & (2c)\\ (2c)& & & 0& (1+4c^2)& & & 0\end{array}\right).`$ (56)
As for the matrix $`(g_{i\overline{j}})`$ it has to be invariant relative to the automorphism $`\theta `$ of $``$ and hence it should have the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}g_{0\overline{0}}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& g_{0\overline{n}}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& 0& & & \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& & & g_{n1,\overline{n1}}& & & & g_{n1,\overline{2n1}}\\ \overline{g}_{0\overline{n}}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& \mathrm{}& & & & \mathrm{}& & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & \mathrm{}& & \\ 0& & & \overline{g}_{n1,\overline{2n1}}& & & & g_{2n1,\overline{2n1}}\end{array}\right).$$
(57)
Let us consider now the reality constraint. For this purposes it is convenient to use the basis $`\varphi _j`$ in $``$:

$$\sqrt{t}\{1,x,\mathrm{},x^{n1},(x^n+c),\mathrm{},(x^{2n1}+cx^{n1})\},$$
(58)
so that in this basis the matrix $`\eta `$ takes a very simple form

$$\eta \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& J\\ J& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(59)
where the matrix $`J`$ is given by the formula (25). From this we have

$$\eta =\eta ^{}=\eta ^1$$
(60)
and from the reality constraint and $`g^{}=g^t`$, it follows that

$$gSO(J,𝐂^{2n}),$$
(61)
$$g=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B^{}& A^{}\end{array}\right)\right\}.$$
(62)
Let us consider now the behavior as $`c0`$. In the basis $`\{1,x,\mathrm{},x^{2n1}\}`$ we have

$$(g_{i\overline{j}})=(g_{i\overline{j}}^{(0)})+c\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & h_1& & \\ & 0& & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & & h_n\\ \overline{h}_1& & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & & & 0\\ & & \overline{h}_n& & & \end{array}\right),$$
(63)
$$C=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& & 1& & \\ & 0& \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& & & & 0\end{array}\right)+cC^{}.$$
(64)
So that in the limit $`c0`$ we have

$$w(x)t\left(\frac{x^{n+1}}{n+1}x\right)$$
(65)
and we get the Toda equations.

It is also possible to get the precise results for arbitrary value of it, if we use the theory of Chebyshev polynomials.

Let us remind that the Chebyshev polynomial $`U_k(t)`$ is defined by the recurrent relation

$$U_{k+1}(t)=2tU_k(t)U_{k1}(t)$$
$`(49)`$
and by ”initial conditions”

$$U_0(t)=1,U_1(t)=2t.$$
(66)
So we have

$$U_k(\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(k+1)\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }$$
(67)
and the generating function for these polynomials

$$\frac{1}{12tz+z^2}=U_0(t)+U_1(t)z+\mathrm{}+U_k(t)z^k+\mathrm{};|z|<1;|t|<1.$$
(68)
Substituting $`ziz`$, $`tit`$, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{1+2tzz^2}=\stackrel{~}{U}_0(t)+\stackrel{~}{U}_1(t)z+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_k(t)z^k+\mathrm{},$$
(69)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{U}_k(t)=i^kU^k(it).$$
(70)
Then we have

$$\stackrel{~}{U}_{k+1}(t)=2t\stackrel{~}{U}_k(t)+\stackrel{~}{U}_{k1}(t),$$
(71)
$$\stackrel{~}{U}_0(t)=1,\stackrel{~}{U}_1(t)=2t,$$
(72)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{U}_k(i\mathrm{cos}\theta )=i^k\frac{\mathrm{sin}(k+1)\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(73)
Now it easy to prove the following

Lemma. For $`d0`$

$$\frac{x^{d+2}}{x^2+2tx1}=\stackrel{~}{U}_0(t)x^d+\stackrel{~}{U}_1(t)x^{d1}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_d(t)+\frac{U_{d+1}(t)x+U_d(t)}{x^2+2tx1}.$$
(74)
Proof. Let us take the change $`zx^1`$ in (52). We have

$$\frac{x^2}{x^2+2tx1}=\stackrel{~}{U}_0(t)+\stackrel{~}{U}_1(t)\frac{1}{x}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_n(t)\frac{1}{x^n}+\mathrm{},|x|>1.$$
(75)
Hence,

$$\frac{x^{d+2}}{x^2+2tx1}=\stackrel{~}{U}_0(t)x^d+\stackrel{~}{U}_1(t)x^{d1}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_d(t)+\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_{d+1}(t)}{x}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_{d+2}(t)}{x^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(76)
and we have

$$\frac{x^{d+2}}{x^2+2tx1}=\stackrel{~}{U}_0(t)x^d+\stackrel{~}{U}_1(t)x^{d1}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{U}_d(t)+\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_{d+1}(t)x+C(t)}{x^2+2tx1}.$$
(77)
If we put here $`x=0`$ we obtain $`C(t)=\stackrel{~}{U}_d(t)`$.

To obtain the explicit expression for matrix $`C`$, note that this matrix is determined by the multiplication of the element $`\left(x\frac{c}{n+1}x^{n+1}\right)`$ in the ring $``$.

Hence,

$$C^n(1)=\left(x\frac{c}{n+1}x^{n+1}\right)^n=\left(1\frac{c}{n+1}x^n\right)^nx^n=A_n(c)+B_n(c)x^n,$$
(78)
$$C^n(x^n)=B_n(c)+(A_n(c)2cB_n(c))(x^n).$$
(79)
So,

$$𝐂1+𝐂x^n^{C^n}𝐂1+𝐂x^n,$$
(80)
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}C^n(1)\\ C^n(x^n)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B& A2cB\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x^n\end{array}\right),A=A_n,B=B_n.$$
(81)
From here we obtain the characteristic equation

$$T^22(AcB)T+(A^22cABB^2)=(T\lambda )(T\mu ),$$
(82)
where

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`AcB+\sqrt{1+c^2}B=A(c\sqrt{1+c^2})B,`$
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`AcB\sqrt{1+c^2}B=A(\sqrt{1+c^2}+c)B.`$
Let us define

$`\lambda _n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`A_n(t)(t\sqrt{1+t^2})B_n(t),`$
$`\mu _n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`A_n(t)(t+\sqrt{1+t^2})B_n(t).`$
We have

$$B_n(c)0\lambda _n(c)\mu _n(c).$$
(85)
In this situation

$$𝐂1+𝐂x^n=𝐂\varphi +𝐂\varphi ^{}$$

with

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n(c)}{B_n(c)}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_n(c)}{B_n(c)}}\right)x^n,`$
$`\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n(c)}{B_n(c)}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_n(c)}{B_n(c)}}\right)x^n.`$
Let us define

$$\varphi _0=\varphi ,\varphi _1=\frac{c\varphi }{(\lambda _n(c))^{1/n}},\mathrm{},\varphi _j=\frac{c^j\varphi }{(\lambda _n(c))^{j/n}},\mathrm{},\varphi _{n1}=\frac{c^{n1}\varphi }{(\lambda _n(c))^{(n1)/n}},$$
(87)
$$\varphi _0^{}=\varphi ^{},\varphi _1^{}=\frac{c\varphi ^{}}{(\mu _n(c))^{1/n}},\mathrm{},\varphi _j^{}=\frac{c^j\varphi ^{}}{(\mu _n(c))^{j/n}},\mathrm{},\varphi _{n1}^{}=\frac{c^{n1}\varphi ^{}}{(\mu _n(c))^{(n1)/n}}.$$
(88)
Then $`\{\varphi _j,\varphi _j^{}\}_{j=0}^{n1}`$ is the basis of $``$ and we have

$$C\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{n1}\\ \varphi _0^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right)$$

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\lambda _n(c))^{1/n}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& & \\ & 0& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& & & 0\end{array}\right)& 0\\ 0& (\mu _n(c))^{1/n}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& & \\ & 0& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& & & 0\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{n1}\\ \varphi _0^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(89)
It is more convenient to rewrite eq. (73) in another basis

$$C\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0\\ \varphi _0^{}\\ \varphi _1\\ \varphi _1^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{n1}\\ \varphi _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& D& & & \\ & 0& D& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & & \mathrm{}& D\\ D& & & & 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0\\ \varphi _0^{}\\ \varphi _1\\ \varphi _1^{}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \varphi _{n1}\\ \varphi _{n1}^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(90)
where

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\lambda _n(c))^{1/n}& 0\\ 0& (\mu _n(c))^{1/n}\end{array}\right).$$
(91)
In this basis the matrix of topological-antitopological couplings has the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}G_0& & & \\ & G_1& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & G_{n1}\end{array}\right)$$
(92)
and the basic equation (9) takes the form

$$\overline{}(G_jG_j^1)G_{j+1}G_j^1+G_jG_{j1}^1=0,j=0,\mathrm{},n1;G_j=G_{j+n}.$$
(93)
So, this equation is the equation for the nonabelian Toda system, where the quantities $`G_j`$ are elements of the non-Abelian group $`SL(2,)`$.