text:
# Controlled order rearrangement encryption for quantum key distribution

## Abstract

A novel technique is devised to perform orthogonal state quantum key distribution. In this scheme, entangled parts of a quantum information carrier are sent from Alice to Bob through two quantum channels. However before the transmission, the orders of the quantum information carrier in one channel is reordered so that Eve can not steal useful information. At the receiver’s end, the order of the quantum information carrier is restored. The order rearrangement operation in both parties is controlled by a prior shared control key which is used repeatedly in a quantum key distribution session.

A complex telecommunication system connects any place at any time with pervasive intrusion in the world today. It is trivial to observe that information security is a fundamental issue today. The task of cryptography is to make secret messages intelligible only for the two legitimate parties of the secret communication, Alice and Bob, and unreadable for other unauthorized users such as Eve. To this end, Alice and Bob have to encrypt their secret messages using a suitable encryption scheme. Thus far, the only proven secure crypto-system is the one-time-pad scheme, in which the secret key is as long as the messages Vernam ; Shannon . The security of the transmission of the secret messages using one-time-pad depends ultimately on the key privacy. The security of key distribution is the most important part in secret communication. Quantum key distribution (QKD), an approach exploiting quantum mechanics principles for secret communication, provides a secure way for transmitting the key. A lot of attention has been focused on QKD BB84 ; Ekert ; BBM ; B92 ; hwang1 ; GV ; HIGM ; Phoenix ; KI ; Brub ; CabelloL ; GLG ; XLG ; LL ; LCA  since the BB84 QKD protocol BB84 , and experimental studies on QKD have been developing very fast in the last two decades Bennett ; MT ; PT ; Muller ; Brendel ; Tittel ; Buttler20 ; Ribordy ; Funk .

The security of QKD lies on the fundamental difference between classical and quantum information. Classical information can be copied freely and imperceptibley. However quantum information cannot be cloned Wootters . Any measurement will disturb the quantum state unless the quantum state is the measuring device’s eigenstate. For a quantum state, Eve has only one chance to choose the right measuring device to avoid capture. The security of QKD protocols lies either on randomness, e.g. in BB84 BB84  and similar protocols Ekert ; BBM ; B92 ; hwang1  or the non-locality nature of quantum systems as in refs GV ; KI ; CabelloL ; LL .

Non-locality is pertinent to quantum system only. Here a quantum state is split into two parts: e.g. the two parts of a photon wave packet GV ; KI , or two correlated particles CabelloL ; LL . We call them as quantum information carriers (QIC). In non-locality based QKD protocols, orthogonal quantum states are used. Security is assured by not allowing Eve to acquire both parts simultaneously. These protocols can be understood in Fig.1 in ref GV , which is similar to Fig.1. Alice and Bob’s sites are secure, and the transmission lines are insecure. Alice produces EPR pairs randomly in one of entangled states. She then sends out the two parts of a QIC simultaneously through two paths to Bob. The lower QIC part is delayed first at Alice’s site, and the upper QIC part is sent away without delay. At Bob’s site, the upper part has a delay and the lower part has not, so the two parts of the QIC arrive at the detector simultaneously and are measured. These protocols use orthogonal states and have full efficiency; and all the particles transmitted can be used to generate secret keys. In Goldenberg-Vaidman scheme GV , the time delay for the two correlated parts is usually longer than the transmission time between the practical distance so that the first QIC part has already reached Bob’s secure field when the second part starts to run into the insecure line. To assure the security, Alice has to send the QIC in random timing. Koashi-Imoto protocol KI  uses an asymmetric interferometer instead of a symmetric interferometer, and the random timing can be dropped and the time-delay can be reduced. However, two factors make this delay cannot be too short. First there exists a detection time window for Eve in these protocols. If Eve acquires the same apparatus as Bob, which is usually assumed in security analysis, she can take an intercept-resend attack. She first intercepts a batch of lower QIC parts which reaches her first and stores them for a while, at the same time she sends fake lower QIC parts to Bob. After delay time t, Eve begins to receive corresponding upper QIC parts. Combining the QIC parts she keeps, she can make collective measurement and know the correct key completely. Afterwards she can send the correct messages to Bob. It is only in this delay time that Eve makes errors about the secret keys. Afterwards, Alice and Bob can only notice a backward shift of Bob’s key string relative to Alice’s. Secondly, Eve can take advantages of noises in noisy channel to gradually make up this shift. If the delay time is not long, Eve can achieves this fairly quickly. Similar issues exist for other protocols that use orthogonal states.

In this paper, we present a controlled order rearrangement encryption (CORE) technique for QKD with the state of a correlated system, such as entangled photon pairs. Here Alice rearranges the order of correlated particles and send them to Bob, and Bob then restores the order of the particles and recover the correct correlation and makes the right measurement. This is done in a controlled manner by the repeated use of a short control key as has been used in the modified BB84 schemehwang1 , where Alice and Bob synchronize their measuring devices by repeatedly using a prior shared control key.

To present our idea clearly, we use EPR pairs as the QIC in the rest of this paper for the sake of simplicity. The procedure and conclusions to other QIC’s are very much the same with little or without any modification. An EPR pair can be in one of the four Bell states:

$`|\psi ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_A|1)_B|1_A|0_B,|\psi ^+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_A|1_B+|1_A|0_B)`$
$`|\varphi ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_A|0_B|1_A|1_B),|\varphi ^+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_A|0_B+|1_A|1_B)`$ (1)
where subscripts A and B indicate the two correlated photons in each pair. They can represent 00, 01, 10 and 11 respectively. As in Fig.1, CORE technique uses two channels. Alice uses a modulator to prepare her EPR pairs randomly in the four Bell-basis states, and then sends out them in equal time intervals to Bob. Before these EPR pairs enter the insecure transmission lines, their orders are rearranged by a controlled-order-rearrangement-encryption system. After they arrive at Bob’s site, they are de-arranged in Bob’s site that undoes the effect of order rearrangement by Alice and then are measured. Fig.2 shows the main idea of CORE by a specific example. Here are four choices of CORE operations. The CORE is done for every four EPR pairs. The upper QIC parts are transmitted according to their temporal ordering. A control key is used to rearrange the order of particles in the lower channel. If the value of control key is 00, operation E0 is applied and the order of the 4 EPR pairs are not changed as shown in Fig.2 (a), which is implemented in the device in Fig.2 (b) with switches 1, 2 and 3 in positions (up, up, down) for all the 4 EPR pairs. When control key is 01, E1 is performed, and it is done by putting the 3 switches into position (down, up, down), (up, down, up), (up, down, down), (up, down, up) for the four particles respectively. Similar combinations can be written explicitly for E2 and E3. After the order rearrangement, two particles that travel simultaneously through the two channels have complicated relations: they are correlated if the CORE operation is E0, and they are anti-correlated if the other 3 CORE operations are used. At Bob’s sites, we just exchange upper and lower part of Alice’s CORE apparatus, and the CORE operation performed by Alice will be undone. After measurement, the information is read out. It is interest to emphasize that the measurement here is orthogonal basis measurement. The outcome is determinative, and is exactly the same as Alice has prepared.

To prevent Eve stealing the information of the encryption ordering operation, one needs an evening process to make the time interval between different batches of QIC’s travel at equal time intervals.

Let’s look at the security of CORE. We suppose that Eve has complete knowledge of Bob’s measuring device except the control key. As she does not know which CORE operation Alice and Bob are doing each time, she can only guess randomly from the four CORE operations. Thus she has only 25% chance to choose the right CORE operation for every 4 EPR pairs. When Alice uses the wrong CORE operation, the two photons she measures will be anti-correlated, say the A particle from the first EPR pair and the B particle from the second EPR pair is mistreated by Eve as an EPR pair, then the density operator will be

$$\rho _{A_1B_2}=\overline{\rho }_{A_1}\overline{\rho }_{B_2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1/4& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/4& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1/4& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1/4\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\overline{\rho }_{A_1}=Tr_{B_1}(\rho _{A_1B_1})`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_{B_2}=Tr_{A_2}(\rho _{A_2B_2})`$ are the reduced density matrices of particle A1 and particle B2, respectively. When $`\rho _{A_1B_2}`$ is measured in Bell-basis, the result can be any of the 4 Bell-basis states with 25% probability each. Thus Eve will introduce 3/4 $`\times `$ 3/4=56.25% error rate in the results. Alice and Bob can detect Eve easily by checking a sufficiently large subset of results randomly chosen.

Surely, Eve can even take Bell inequality measurement on the photons, but it is useless for decrypting the control key. Let us choose two directions $`\stackrel{}{a}(a_x,a_y,a_z)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}(b_x,b_y,b_z)`$ as the directions of measurement of Alice and Bob respectively. Then the correlation operator can be written as follow.

$`\widehat{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{a}\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{b}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cccc}a_zb_z& a_z(b_xib_y)& (a_xia_y)b_z& (a_xia_y)(b_xib_y)\\ a_z(b_x+ib_y)& a_zb_z& (a_xia_y)(b_x+ib_y)& (a_xia_y)b_z\\ (a_x+ia_y)b_z& (a_x+ia_y)(b_xib_y)& a_zb_z& a_z(b_xib_y)\\ (a_x+ia_y)(b_x+ib_y)& (a_x+ia_y)b_z& a_z(b_x+ib_y)& a_zb_z\end{array}\right]`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is the Pauli operator, $`\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. The expectation value $`E(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b})_\psi =\psi \left|\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{a}\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{b}\right|\psi `$ in state $`|\psi `$ is different for different Bell states. They are $`\left(a_xb_x+a_yb_y+a_zb_z\right)`$, $`a_xb_x+a_yb_ya_zb_z`$, $`a_xb_x+a_yb_y+a_zb_z`$ and $`a_xb_xa_yb_y+a_zb_z`$ in Bell states $`|\psi ^{}`$, $`|\psi ^+`$, $`|\varphi ^{}`$ and $`|\varphi ^{}`$ respectively. For product states $`|0|0`$, $`|0|1`$, $`|1|0`$ and $`|1|1`$, the expected values are $`a_zb_z`$, $`a_zb_z`$, $`a_zb_z`$ and $`a_zb_z`$ respectively. If Eve takes Bell inequality measurement on two uncorrelated photons in the CORE repeatedly, she will get 0 for a large number of measurements as the photons is randomly distributed in the four product states. If Eve does takes two correlated photons, she will also get 0 as the EPR pair takes the 4 Bell states with equal probability. In fact, the violation of Bell inequality holds for two photons in a a fixed Bell state. So Eve can get no information about the control key except for guessing it randomly.

The control key is very important. Here we must emphasize that unlike classical one-time-pad, the control key for CORE can be quite short and be used repeatedly. This is surprising to a conventional cryptographer because it is well known that a one-time-pad key used twice will be of great danger. But it is a different story when quantum mechanics comes into play. There are fundamental differences in encryption between classical signal and quantum state. In classical encryption, signal can be copied freely and the copying process does not introduce error on the final results. Eve can exploit this freedom to eavesdrop in classical communication. In quantum physics, quantum states can be measured without disturbing the system only if they are eigenstates of the measuring operator. When Eve tries to measure the states without knowing if she is using the eigenstate operator, she will produce errors most of the time. The no-cloning theoremWootters  forbids Eve to produce multiple copies to break the code by trial and error, and she has only one chance for a quantum state! Different from classical cryptography, Eve has no means to decipher the control key. She can only guess the control key randomly. The probability that Eve guesses the right control key is $`(\frac{1}{4})^{N_k}=(\frac{1}{2})^{2N_k}`$, where 2Nk is the number of bits in the control key. When Nk=100, the probability is practically zero. The security of the repeated use of a short control key has recently been provedhwang2 . It is shown that QKD without public announcement of basis is secure against both individual and coherent attacks. The proof could be applied to this CORE scheme with some modification. More detailed study needs be done to prove the security of the CORE scheme.

The control key is short. A few hundreds bit is enough for many purposes. We can use a control key repeatedly in a single QKD session. The control key can be produced in many ways. Any sequence of secret numbers can be used as control key. They can be produced beforehand when Alice and Bob are in contact. But the preferred generating method is to produce them on-sites using the same physical setup. Instead of simultaneously choosing the same CORE operation, Alice and Bob choose their operation randomly. They record their results and the CORE operation they use each time. They have 25% chance to choose identical CORE operations. In these events, they should have identical results. After some transmissions, they publish their CORE operations, and retain those with identical CORE operations. They then perform eavesdropping check. If the error rate is lower than a threshold, they then conclude that their transmission is safe and then continue to perform he follow-up post-processing such as error correction and privacy amplification. Then they have a common secret random numbers that can be used as the control key. After the generation of the control key, Alice and Bob then switch to the synchronized operation CORE, which is much more efficient. Actually, the on-site generation of the control key is a BB84-type protocol, and the intrinsic is low. However, we need only to use this operation to generate a very short sequence key. The time it takes is negligible compared to the main process of a QKD process.

The CORE technique is not only suitable for EPR pairs, but also suitable for other QIC’s. The formalism used here can be directly translated into the wave-packet case as in refs GV ; KI . In that case, the experimental implementation will be easier. In addition, CORE can be performed in groups. The control key can be used to control the CORE operation of a group of units. For instance, instead of using 01 controls CORE operation of one unit of QICs(4 EPR pairs) , one can use 01 to control the use of E1 for more units of QICs consecutively, say 4 units or 16 EPR pairs.

The specific example of CORE in this paper uses only four simple permutation operations. The idea presented here can be easily extended to build more complicated systems. The essence of CORE technique is the repeated use of a control key to perform classical encryption on the quantum system. The non-cloning nature of quantum state ensures this technique viable.

Though genuine single photon source has been realized in laboratorySchields ; Yuan , at present highly attenuated laser pulses is used to approximate single photon source where only 1 out of 10 pulse contains a photon. The detection efficiency is not 100% either. As with other QKD schemes, we must perform eavesdropping check, and if the error rate is less than threshold the results are taken as the raw key. After quantum error correction and privacy amplification, the raw key will be processed into ideal secret keys.

To summarize, CORE technique can be used to perform secure key distribution with present technology in a controlled and efficient manner. It is worth mentioning, the discovery of security of repeated use of a short control keyhwang1  is very important. It enables quantum key distribution in a more efficient way.

This work is supported by the National Fundamental Research Program Grant No. 001CB309308, China National Natural Science Foundation Grant No. 60073009, the Hang-Tian Science Fund, and the Excellent Young University Teachers’ Fund of Education Ministry of China.


format: text

text:
# Breather Statics and Dynamics in Klein–Gordon Chains with a Bend

## I Introduction

In the last decade, intrinsic localized modes (ILMs), or discrete breathers (DBs) as they are also termed, have become a topic of intense theoretical and experimental investigation; see e.g., review  for a number of recent reviews on the topic. Per their inherent ability to bottleneck and potentially transport the energy in a coherent fashion, such exponentially localized in space and periodic in time entities have have come to be of interest in a variety of contexts. These range from nonlinear optics and arrays of waveguides mora  to Bose-Einstein condensates inside optical lattice potentials tromb  and from prototypical models of nonlinear springs pesa  to Josephson junctions alex  and dynamical models of the DNA double strand Peybi .

One of the playgrounds that have most recently been added to this long list of ILM applications consists of nonlinear photonic crystal waveguides and circuits kivshar . In connection to this context, an issue that becomes very relevant (see e.g. the models developed in kivshar ) is the interplay of nonlinearity and geometry as, typically in photonic crystal waveguide arrays, two-dimensional or quasi-one dimensional settings with bends kivshar ; pgk1  become relevant.

We should note here that the interplay of nonlinearity and geometry has been increasingly appreciated in the ILM literature. From the long range interactions on a fixed curved substrate gaid , to lattice-substrate feedback models pgk2  and from lattice junctions with different masses bena , to semi-circular, polymer-like chains tsir  and geometrically motivated, bent models of DNA ACMG01 ; ACG01 ; CPAR02 ; CAGR02 , the geometry can significantly affect the static (inducing e.g., multi-stability) and dynamic (causing e.g., a variety of outcomes in the ILM interaction with curvature) properties of the relevant lattice model.

In the present work, motivated by these studies we examine the nonlinear Klein-Gordon variant of a model introduced recently in the context of the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation (DNLS) in pgk1 . This is a prototypical model emulating the geometry of a lattice bend, by the inclusion in the vicinity of the bend of next-nearest neighbor interaction due to the proximity of these neighbors in this context (see e.g., Fig. 1).

We will examine this bend in the framework of a soft and a hard Klein-Gordon interaction potential, namely the Morse and the hard $`\varphi ^4`$ potentials respectively. Apart from the inherent interest of the interaction, at the static as well as dynamical level, of discrete breathers with the “geometric impurity” induced by the bend, the model may be relevant to a number of applications. In particular, the DNLS serves as the envelope wave equation (at the discrete level) for Maxwell’s equation, hence, for the photonic applications, it may be of more interest to identify the properties of the corresponding Klein-Gordon model. Furthermore, this may also serve as a simple dynamical model for understanding the interaction of a denaturation bubble in DNA Peybi ; RB  with the local helical geometry of the double strand. This is similar in spirit to the earlier study of dauxois , where the helicoidal geometry was argued to induce a non-nearest neighbor interaction across the double strand. Notice, also, that we follow a slightly different path than pgk1 , by examining not only static but also dynamic properties of the model and, in particular, the potential outcomes of the breather-bend interaction.

In the next section, we will present the model equation of interest, while in section 3, we will study its linear modes. In section 4, we will examine the static properties of the two models, by examining the bifurcations of breathing modes as a function of the “bend parameter” $`\gamma `$. In section 5, the corresponding dynamics properties of the breather-bend interaction will be presented. Finally, in section 6, we summarize our findings and present our conclusions.

## II The model

In accordance with the above description, the Hamiltonian of the Klein–Gordon chains of interest will be given by:

$$H=\underset{n}{}\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{u}_n+V(u_n)+\frac{1}{2}C(u_{n+1}u_n)^2+\gamma (u_{n+1}u_{n1})^2\delta _{n,0}\right),$$
(1)
thus the bending point is located at the particle $`n=0`$ and implies, as is graphically indicated in Fig. 1, a geometrically induced coupling of next-nearest neighbors (nnn) adjacent to the bend site.

We should clarify here the nature of the configuration and of the dynamics. The displacements $`u_n`$ represent an “external” field such as e.g., the electric field in a array of optical waveguides or the stretching of a base pair in a DNA chain Peybi . The chain of Fig. 1 should be considered as being geometrically fixed on the plane of the paper. The dynamics of the displacements is transverse, i.e., perpendicular to the plane of the bent chain. In such a setting the coefficient of the interaction between adjacent sites is determined by the (fixed) geometric proximity of the nodes constituting the chain. For a derivation of the discrete model in the first setting and an explanation of the dependence of the interaction coefficient on the geometry of the configuration and the inter-nodal distance, see e.g., christo . In this context, it is natural to assume that the effect of the bend (due to the geometric proximity of sites $`n=1`$ and $`n=1`$) will be to induce the nnn coupling between them (cf. christo ).

$`V(u)`$ is the on–site potential which is chosen to be of the (soft) Morse type, $`V(u)=(\mathrm{exp}(u)1)^2/2`$ or of the (hard) $`\varphi ^4`$ type, $`V(u)=x^2/2+x^4/4`$; $`C`$ is a coupling constant between nearest neighbors (nn) whose interaction will be harmonic (i.e., connected by linear springs) for the purposes of the present work.

From the Hamiltonian (1), the following dynamical equations can be obtained:

$$\ddot{u}_n+V^{}(u_n)+C\left(u_{n+1}+u_{n1}2u_n\right)+\gamma [(u_nu_{n2})\delta _{n,1}+(u_nu_{n+2})\delta _{n,1}]=0.$$
(2)
A natural bifurcation/continuation parameter that we will use for the purposes of our study is $`\alpha \gamma /C`$. The relevant ratio is a natural measure of the relative strength of the different neighbor interactions (the bend-based nnn one and the uniformly distributed nn one). This ratio can also be interpreted geometrically (in the sprit of Fig. 1). In particular, it can be related to the wedge angle $`\varphi `$ through the relation: $`\alpha =1/(2(1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )))`$. For the nnn approximation to be realistic, $`\varphi `$ must be larger than $`60^\mathrm{o}`$, hence, equivalently, $`\alpha <1`$. Notice that while the geometric interpretation of the moment prompts us to typically examine the regime of $`\alpha (0,1]`$, it is of inherent mathematical interest to examine broader parameter ranges, and therefore some of our results below will be presented for values of $`\alpha `$ outside this range.

## III Linear modes

Some of the properties of discrete breathers are related to the existence or non-existence of linear localized modes. These modes appear as the bend is introduced by modifying the coupling, which is effectively equivalent to the introduction of an inhomogeneity in the curvature at the bottom of the inter-site potential CPAR02b .

The linear modes can be obtained from the linearized form (around the uniform state $`u_n=0`$) of the dynamical equations (2):

$$\ddot{u}_n+\omega _o^2u_n+C(2u_nu_{n1}u_{n+1})+\gamma [(u_nu_{n2})\delta _{n,1}+(u_nu_{n+2})\delta _{n,1}]=0,$$
(3)
with $`\omega _o^2=1`$. The linear modes can be calculated using the lattice Green’s function BK91 ; MMW . The frequency of the localized linear modes (also referred to as *impurity modes*) is thus given by:

$$\omega _{\mathrm{imp}}^2=\omega _o^2+\frac{C(2\alpha +1)^2}{2\alpha }=\omega _o^2+\frac{(2\gamma +C)^2}{2\gamma },$$
(4)
and the inhomogeneity parameter is related to the frequency of the impurity modes through the relation:

$$\alpha =\frac{\omega _{\mathrm{imp}}^2\omega _o^22C\pm \sqrt{(\omega _{\mathrm{imp}}^2\omega _o^2)(\omega _{\mathrm{imp}}^2\omega _o^24C)}}{4C},$$
(5)
where the plus sign corresponds to $`\omega _{\mathrm{imp}}^2>\omega _o^2+4C`$ and the minus sign to $`\omega _{\mathrm{imp}}<\omega _o`$.

Figure 2 shows the frequencies of the linear modes as a function of $`\alpha =\gamma /C`$ and the profile of the impurity modes. It can be observed that, for $`\gamma >0`$ the impurity mode is above the phonon band and, in consequence, has a zigzag vibrational pattern (i.e., a staggered mode). If $`\gamma <0`$, the mode is below the band and its sites oscillate in phase CPAR02b . It is worth remarking that the impurity modes are anti-symmetric modes whose central lattice site is at rest.

## IV Static Results: Stationary breathers and their Bifurcations

Discrete breathers can be calculated using well-known techniques based on the concept of continuation from the anti-continuous limit MA96 . Furthermore, since the bending acts as an inhomogeneity, the system has lost its integer shift invariance and the properties of the breathers critically depend on the site where their center is located (at $`\gamma =0`$). This fact leads to the existence of saddle-node bifurcations through which some of the solutions can disappear. Similar bifurcations have been previously observed in bent chains of oscillators ACMG01 ; ACG01 . This has also been the main focus, for DNLS type settings, of pgk1 .

These bifurcations need a relatively high value of the coupling (sufficient cross-talk between the neighboring sites) to be observed. Otherwise, breather solutions will exist for very large intervals of $`\gamma `$ in every site of the lattice. Hence we restrict ourselves to $`C`$’s of the order of (typically) $`0.1`$ to render these bifurcations tractable.

We now proceed to examine the bifurcation diagrams (as a function of $`\alpha `$) for both soft and hard on-site potentials and a harmonic inter-site potential.

### IV.1 Morse potential

Figure 3 shows the bifurcation diagrams for the case of a Morse on–site potential and couplings $`C=0.13`$ and $`C=0.26`$ and frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{b}=0.8`$, and Figure 4 shows the spatial profile of the solutions corresponding to a number of branches for $`\alpha =0.0005`$.

For $`C=0.13`$, the branch corresponding to the breathers centered at $`n=0`$ merges with the breathers originally centered at $`n=0.5`$ at $`\alpha 0.00115`$. The branches centered at $`n=1.5`$ and $`n=2`$ disappear through a saddle-node bifurcation at $`\alpha 0.00057`$. This phenomenon is also observed for the branches centered at $`n=2.5`$ and $`n=3`$ at $`\alpha 0.00674`$. For $`\alpha <0`$ the annihilations are observed between different branches of solutions. In particular, the branches centered at $`n=0.5`$ and $`n=1`$ annihilate at $`\alpha 0.00049`$ and the ones centered at $`n=2`$ and $`n=2.5`$ cease to exist through the saddle-node bifurcation occurring at $`\alpha 0.00120`$. It should, however, be noted that some branches (see e.g., the branch centered at $`n=1`$ for $`\alpha >0`$ or the one centered $`n=1.5`$ for $`\alpha <0`$) never annihilate. It is also interesting to note that all of these branches of solutions are unstable, as both site-centered and bond-centered breathers are unstable in the straight chain (for this value of the nn coupling). However, the branch resulting when the centered at $`n=0`$ and $`n=0.5`$ merge is stable.

The branch centered at $`n=1.5`$ becomes stable for $`\alpha 0.002`$. This change of stability has its origin in a pair of Floquet multipliers that collide in the unit circle at $`\lambda =1`$. Notice that this behavior, unlike the typical branches discussed above does not involve a saddle-node bifurcation (or for that matter an exchange of stability with another static breather branch).

For $`C=0.26`$ the saddle-node bifurcations occur between different solutions from the case considered above. For $`\alpha >0`$, the branches centered at $`n=0.5`$ and $`n=1`$ collide and disappear at $`\alpha 0.00072`$; the branches centered at $`n=2`$ and $`n=2.5`$ cease to exist at $`\alpha 0.00106`$ while the ones centered at $`n=3`$ and $`n=3.5`$ terminate at $`\alpha 0.00342`$. The branch centered at $`n=0`$ merges with the branch centered at $`n=0.5`$ for $`\alpha <0`$ and in particular for $`\alpha 0.00187`$.

In addition, the branches centered at $`n=1.5`$ and $`n=2`$ annihilate at $`\alpha 0.00204`$ and the ones centered at $`n=2.5`$ and $`n=3`$ collide at $`\alpha 0.00157`$. It is interesting to observe that similarly to what was found in pgk1 , in a different setting, there is an asymmetric mode that persists for $`\alpha <0`$, whose energy is lower than the symmetric bend mode. Hence, for $`\alpha <0`$ in this case, we observe a symmetry breaking effect that leads to an asymmetric ground state of the system. Notice that similar asymmetric modes can be found (and identified to be potentially stable) in continuum models with localized impurities; see e.g., andrey .

It should be noted here that for this larger value of the coupling, the branches corresponding to site centered solutions are stable for an infinite lattice, whereas the bond-centered solutions are unstable for the rectilinear chain. This stability is inherited by the branches of the bent chain. Motivated by the change of stability at the “un-bent” limit ($`\gamma =0`$), occurring as a function of $`C`$ (e.g., notice above the different stability of this limit for $`C=0.13`$ and $`C=0.26`$), we briefly study the stability of the rectilinear chain limit, as a function of $`C`$. To illustrate the stability of the 1-site and 2-site modes in the rectilinear chain (discussed in part in CAGR02 ), we examine their Floquet multipliers, both by means of the argument angles as well as giving their absolute values in Fig. 5. Notice, in particular, for the 1-site modes that there are two inversions of stability, namely one at $`C0.1297`$ and another for $`C0.2382`$. For $`C>0.2382`$, the 1-site modes are stable but with interspersed size-dependent windows of instability (see e.g., MA98 ; Cuevas ; cretegny ).

Finally, let us mention that the branch that originates by the merging of the $`n=0`$ and $`n=0.5`$ branches is unstable. Figure 6 shows an example of the spatial profile and the Floquet eigenvalues of an unstable state for $`\alpha <0`$, namely a breather (originally) centered around $`n=1`$. Notice however that the instability in this case is a result of the finite size of the lattice.

### IV.2 $`\varphi ^4`$ potential

The most significant difference of the $`\varphi ^4`$ case with respect to the Morse one is that in the former (i.e., for a hard potential), the breathers bifurcate from the top of the continuous spectrum and as a result the corresponding spatial profiles are staggered review . Hence, in this case the main solutions of interest are 1-site or 2-site breathers with the adjacent sites oscillating in anti-phase.

The hard $`\varphi ^4`$ potential has been considered with a coupling constant $`C=0.09`$ and solutions with frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{b}=1.2`$. For these parameter values (notice that $`C`$ is comparable to the values used in Fig. 3), the saddle-node bifurcations of interest occur at considerably larger values of $`\alpha `$ for the present model in comparison to the Morse case; see e.g., Fig. 7. In particular, the branch of the on-site breathers centered at $`n=0`$ merges with the inter-site branch centered at $`n=0.5`$ at $`\alpha 0.516`$. Similarly, the on-site solutions centered at $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$ collide (and disappear) with the corresponding inter-site ones centered at $`n=1.5`$ and $`n=2.5`$ at $`\alpha 0.258`$ and $`\alpha 0.590`$, respectively. However, in this case, the branch centered at $`n=1`$, becomes the asymmetric, lowest energy, stable ground state that persists for any value of $`\alpha `$. For $`\alpha <0`$, the on-site breathers centered at $`n=1`$ annihilate with the inter-site ones centered at $`n=0.5`$ at $`\alpha 0.255`$. Notice that here also on-site solutions are stable, while inter-site ones are unstable for $`\gamma =0`$, but the branch emerging from the $`n=0`$ and $`n=0.5`$ is unstable.

Some of the breather solutions for $`\alpha =0.1`$ are shown in Figure 8 and the profile of the ground state for $`\alpha >0`$ together with its Floquet eigenvalues in Figure 9.

### IV.3 Instabilities: Switching and Breather Mobility

As explained above, the ground state is not always the breather centered at $`n=0`$. In particular, for a Morse potential, $`C=0.26`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{b}=0.8`$ and $`|\alpha |`$ large enough, the ground state for $`\alpha <0`$ is the breather centered at $`n=1`$ (at least in the infinite domain limit, since in the finite domain case, it may be unstable as shown in Fig. 6). On the other hand, for $`\alpha >0`$ the ground state is still the breather at $`n=0`$. Thus, if an unstable solution (say, the $`n=0`$-centered for $`\alpha <0`$ or the $`n=1.5`$ for $`\alpha >0`$) are perturbed, they are likely to *switch* to the ground state, in a similar fashion to the phenomenon observed in ACMG01 . However, as Figure 10 shows, this may not always be the case. In particular, the breather oscillates between the sites $`n=0`$ and $`n=3.5`$ (i.e., in the vicinity of the stable ground state) for $`\alpha <0`$, while for $`\alpha >0`$, it is set in motion. A possible explanation relies on the fact that the eigenmode leading to the instability is actually a pinning mode, that is responsible for breather mobility (see also Section V). Hence a perturbation with the appropriate sign (i.e., causing the breather to move away from the ground state of $`n=0`$ rather than toward it) along this eigendirection can lead to breather motion.

For a $`\varphi ^4`$ potential, $`C=0.09`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{b}=1.2`$ and $`|\alpha |`$ large enough, the ground state for $`\alpha >0`$ is the breather centered at $`n=1`$, while for $`\alpha <0`$, it is not well-defined.

Figure 11 shows the evolution of a 2-site breather centered at $`n=2`$ with $`\alpha =0.5`$. It is observed that the breather can switch to the 1-site breather centered at $`n=1`$, i.e., the ground state. In this case, no moving localized excitations arise, but rather the previously suggested switch occurs. This may be attributed to the fact that for the hard $`\varphi ^4`$ potential, there do not exist pinning modes that could potentially lead to breather mobility (see also CAT96 ).

## V Dynamic Results: Moving Breathers and Breather-Bend Interactions

In this section we examine how the local geometry of the bend can influence the motion of a breather in its vicinity. In particular, the moving breathers are launched towards the bend vertex following the marginal mode method CAT96 . The latter consists of adding to the velocities of the static breather a perturbation of magnitude $`\lambda `$, collinear to the direction of a specific linear localized mode, namely the eigenmode corresponding to translation. Then, the kinetic (translational) energy of the breather can be defined as $`K=\lambda ^2/2`$. As Ref. CPAR02  shows, the moving breather can be described as a quasi-particle of mass $`m^{}`$ defined through the relation $`K=\lambda ^2/2=m^{}v^2/2`$, with $`v`$ being the translational velocity of the breather. The mass is a measure of the inertia of the breather to external forces.

Another useful concept for our study is the breather energy center, which is a measure of the position of the localized structure. It is defined through the relation $`X=(_nne_n)/E`$, i.e., as the center of mass with respect to $`e_n`$, the energy density at the n-th site. $`E=_ne_n`$ is the total energy of the breather CAGR02 .

The local “coupling inhomogeneity” induced by the bend, should result in features similar to those observed in Ref. CPAR02b . In particular, for a soft potential, if $`\alpha >0`$, the bending should act, in principle (see also below), as a potential barrier, i.e., the breather can cross the vertex as long as its translational energy is above a threshold value. If this condition is satisfied, the breather decelerates when crossing the bend, but eventually recovers its initial velocity. If, on the other hand, $`\alpha <0`$, then the corresponding behavior is more complex: for small values of $`|\alpha |`$, the bend acts as a potential well, accelerating a moving breather approaching it. However, for larger values of the parameter, trapping and even reflection become possible. For a hard potential, such as $`\varphi ^4`$, the behaviors for $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\alpha <0`$ are reversed CPAR03 .

We will focus on the $`\alpha >0`$ case and consider, as before, a chain of oscillators with 1) the Morse on–site potential, as well as one with 2) the $`\varphi ^4`$ on–site and inter–site potential. Thus, for the case of the Morse (soft) potential, the bending will act as a potential barrier, while for the $`\varphi ^4`$ (hard) potential, the well/trapping/reflection regimes will be examined.

### V.1 Morse Chain: Bend-Induced Potential Barrier

As mentioned earlier, for a soft on–site potential and $`\alpha >0`$, the bending acts as a potential barrier, i.e., if the translational energy of the breather $`K`$ is above a threshold value $`U_c`$, the breather crosses the bending. Otherwise, the breather is reflected. Figure 12 shows the time evolution of a reflected (top panel), a refracted (middle panel) and that of a trapped breather (bottom panel). In the top panel (for $`K<U_c`$), the breather is immediately reflected from the potential barrier, emerging with (approximately) the same speed, but propagating in the opposite direction. In the middle panel of the figure, it can be observed that, for $`K>U_c`$ the breather decelerates when it approaches the $`n=1`$ site, accelerates when it crosses this point until it reaches the bend vertex ($`n=0`$ site); it decelerates again when approaching the $`n=1`$ site, accelerating when it crosses this point.

Figure 13 shows the critical energy $`U_c`$ necessary to cross the bend. An important point to indicate is the existence of two distinct values of the critical energy $`U_{c\pm }`$, that correspond respectively to the kinetic energy threshold for crossing the site $`n=\pm 1`$. When $`U_c<U_{c+}`$ holds, for intermediate values of $`U_{}K<U_+`$, the loss of energy due to phonon radiation in the breather-bend interaction, disallows the moving breather from crossing the bend. Hence, if the two thresholds are different, the breather can be trapped oscillating between the $`n=1`$ and $`n=1`$ sites; an example is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 12. As is naturally expected, the energy loss decreases when $`\alpha `$ is small (i.e., as we approach the rectilinear, integer-shift invariant chain), and $`U_c=U_{c+}`$ is practically fulfilled in this parameter range, e.g., for $`\alpha <0.01`$ in Fig. 13.

The potential barrier $`U=U(X)`$ can be calculated using the procedure described in CPAR02 : if $`K<U_c`$, the value of $`K`$ is fixed and $`X_o`$ is the point where the breather is reflected (turning point), then $`K=U(X_o)`$.

If, on the other hand, $`K>U_c`$, the barrier can be calculated through the formula:

$$U(X)=K\left(1\left(\frac{v(X)}{v_o}\right)^2\right),$$
(6)
where $`v_o`$ is the initial translational velocity of the breather and $`v(X)`$ is its (numerically computed) velocity at the point $`X`$. If the mass of the breather is constant, the barrier calculated for $`K<U_c`$ and $`K>U_c`$ should coincide, except for the oscillations that appear in the second case with respect to the first one. The origin of these oscillations relies on the non-uniformity of the instantaneous translational velocity of the breather due to the discreteness of the system. Thus, to obtain the actual shape of the barrier, the turning point approach should be used.

However, this method can only be applied in our case for $`X<1`$ (and hence by symmetry for $`X>1`$) as for $`K<U_c`$, the breather cannot cross over to the region $`1<X<1`$. In order to overcome this drawback, we have approximated the potential barrier created by a single inhomogeneity with a Gaussian shape: $`U(X)=a\mathrm{exp}(b(XX_o)^2)`$, where $`X_o`$ is the point where the maximum of the barrier is located (which need not be the inhomogeneity point) pgk1 ; Cuevas ; pgk3 . In our bend setting, there are two points where the equation is inhomogeneous with respect to the rest of the chain. Hence, it is natural to approximate the actual barrier with the linear superposition of two Gaussian barriers, i.e.,

$$U(X)=a\mathrm{exp}(b(XX_1)^2)+\mathrm{exp}(b(XX_1)^2),x_{\pm 1}=\pm (1+\delta ),$$
(7)
with $`\delta `$ being the difference between the turning point at $`KU_c`$ and the “impurity site”; e.g. for a breather launched from the left of the bending, $`\delta =X(U_c)+1`$. Thus, equation (7) becomes:

$$U(X)=2a\mathrm{exp}(bX^2)\mathrm{exp}(b(1+\delta )^2)\mathrm{cosh}(2bX(1+\delta )).$$
(8)
Figure 14 shows the barrier calculated using equations (6) and (8). Parameters $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`\delta `$ are chosen through the Gaussian fit of the barrier points for $`|X|>1`$. Comparing the fitted profile of Eq. (8) with the one obtained for a supercritical case of $`K>U_c`$ indicates very good agreement, which in turn supports the assumption of Eq. (7).

Notice, however, that the such a restricted one-degree-of-freedom picture cannot capture phenomena such as emission of radiative small amplitude waves during the crossing of the bend, and consequently cannot display a phenomenology as rich as the original problem (e.g., it cannot exhibit the trapping type phenomena discussed above).

### V.2 $`\varphi ^4`$ Chain: Well/Trapping/Reflection Regimes

For the case of a hard potential with $`\alpha >0`$ three different behaviors can be observed when $`\alpha `$ increases (see Figure 15):

1. For small values of $`\alpha `$, the breather accelerates when reaching the bend points, and eventually emerges from the bend recovering a constant velocity (but not the same as the initial one due to radiative emissions). That is, the bending acts as a potential well.
2. For larger values of $`\alpha `$, the breather is trapped at the $`n=1`$ site.
3. For even larger values of $`\alpha `$, the breather is reflected and the particle at the vertex remains excited. This phenomenon can be also called partial trapping, since a fraction of the original breather energy remains localized at the bend.
4. Finally, beyond a third critical point for $`\alpha `$, the breather is reflected from the bend, and, in a different fashion to the barrier case, the breather is not refracted for any velocity.

It should be noted that the boundaries between partial trapping to reflection and well to trapping regimes are not well-defined. In the first case, the amplitude of the vertex excitation decreases when $`|\alpha |`$ increases. Due to this fact, it is difficult to establish the borderline between those regimes. In the second case, the breather is trapped if its translational energy is below a threshold value. However, for energies above this value, the bend acts as a potential well. Thus, the trapping takes place without need of energy loss when the breather crosses the $`n=1`$ site, that is, it occurs as long as the translational energy is below the threshold commented above. These facts are illustrated in Figure 16.

## VI Conclusions

In this communication, we have introduced a discrete Klein-Gordon chain model variant, emulating the existence of a geometric bend at a lattice site.

We have examined the static properties of the localized in space, time periodic solutions that exist in this setting, starting from the limit where the chain is rectilinear. In the latter case, from the integer shift invariance and numerous earlier studies review , we know that site-centered and bond-centered solutions will exist and their stability can be established. Hence, using continuation from the “straight” limit into the “bent” regime, we are able to trace the branches of corresponding solutions and identify their saddle-node bifurcations leading to the termination of the corresponding branches. However, we have also identified symmetry breaking effects in which one of the asymmetric branches does not collide with one of its neighboring counterparts to terminate its existence, but rather survives throughout the bend-parameter strength continuation, and becomes the lowest energy state of the lattice. Excitation of unstable bend modes in such cases will lead to trapping around (i.e., switching to) such an asymmetric state, but in the presence of pinning modes, moving breathers may result. Hence, we conclude that sufficiently strong bends may favor an asymmetric localization of energy, with respect to the bend center.

We have also studied the dynamic properties of the interaction of such bends with moving localized modes, when the latter are scattered off of a bend. We have found that for soft potentials, the bend operates as a potential barrier allowing transmission for supercritical and reflection for subcritical values of the localized excitation’s initial speed. However, there can also be narrow intervals of trapping (not captured by the potential barrier picture). On the other hand, for hard potentials, a more complex and partly initial condition (i.e., kinetic energy) dependent picture emerges. For small bend strengths, the inhomogeneity acts as a potential well, but for higher ones it can lead to trapping and even to reflection.

In this numerical study, we have mainly aimed at presenting the relevant phenomenology, classifying it for Klein-Gordon chains with different potentials, and providing a qualitative explanation of the relevant findings. It would naturally be of interest to attempt to obtain more quantitative, theoretically predicted, estimates for the transitions observed herein. A variational viewpoint may prove to be useful in this context.

###### Acknowledgements.

The support of NSF-DMS-0204585, a University of Massachusetts Faculty Research Grant, and of the Eppley Foundation for Research is gratefully acknowledged (PGK). JC acknowledges an FPDI grant from ‘La Junta de Andalucía’ and partial support under the European Commission RTN project LOCNET, HPRN-CT-1999-00163.