text:
# The Reznichenko property and the Pytkeev property in hyperspaces

## 1. Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a space (we suppose that all spaces are Hausdorff). For a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ and a family $`𝒜`$ of subsets of $`X`$ we put $`A^c=XA`$ and $`𝒜^c=\{A^c:A𝒜\}`$. By $`2^X`$ we denote the family of all closed subsets of $`X`$. If $`A`$ is a subset of $`X`$, then we write

$`A^{}=\{F2^X:FA\mathrm{}\}`$,

$`A^+=\{F2^X:FA\}`$.

There are many known topologies on $`2^X`$. The most popular among them is the Vietoris topology $`𝖵=𝖵^{}𝖵^+`$, where the *lower Vietoris topology* $`𝖵^{}`$ is generated by all sets $`A^{}`$, $`AX`$ open, and the *upper Vietoris topology* $`𝖵^+`$ is generated by sets $`B^+`$, $`B`$ open in $`X`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a subset of $`2^X`$. Then the *upper $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-topology*, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ (and first studied in abstract in  and then in ), is the topology whose subbase is the collection

$$\{(D^c)^+:D\mathrm{\Delta }\}\{2^X\}.$$

We consider only such subsets $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`2^X`$ which are closed for finite unions and contain all singletons. In that case the above collection is a base for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ because we have

$$(D_1^c)^+(D_2^c)^+=(D_1^cD_2^c)^+=((D_1D_2)^c)^+\text{ and }D_1D_2\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Two important special cases, in which we are especially interested in this paper, are $`\mathrm{\Delta }=𝔽(X)`$ – the family of all finite subsets of $`X`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=𝕂(X)`$ – the collection of compact subsets of $`X`$. The $`𝔽(X)^+`$-topology will be denoted by $`𝖹^+`$ and the $`𝕂(X)^+`$-topology by $`𝖥^+`$. The $`𝖥^+`$-topology is known as the *upper Fell topology* (or the *co-compact topology*) . The *Fell topology* $`𝖥`$ on $`2^X`$ is the topology $`𝖵^{}𝖥^+`$.

We investigate two closure type properties of $`2^X`$, the Reznichenko property and the Pytkeev property, which are intermediate between sequentiality and the countable tightness property that have been studied in  and .

Let us fix some terminology and notation that we need.

Let $`𝒜`$ and $``$ be sets whose members are families of subsets of an infinite set $`X`$. Then (see , ):

$`𝖲_1(𝒜,)`$ denotes the selection principle:

> For each sequence $`(A_n:n)`$ of elements of $`𝒜`$ there is a sequence $`(b_n:n)`$ such that for each $`n`$ $`b_nA_n`$, and $`\{b_n:n\}`$ is an element of $``$.

$`𝖲_{fin}(𝒜,)`$ denotes the selection hypothesis:

> For each sequence $`(A_n:n)`$ of elements of $`𝒜`$ there is a sequence $`(B_n:n)`$ of finite sets such that for each $`n`$ $`B_nA_n`$, and $`_nB_n`$ is an element of $``$.

If $`𝒞`$ is a family of subsets of a space $`X`$ then an open cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is called a *$`𝒞`$-cover* if each $`C𝒞`$ is contained in an element of $`𝒰`$. $`𝔽(X)`$-covers and $`𝕂(X)`$-covers are customarily called *$`\omega `$-covers* and *$`k`$-covers*, respectively. We suppose that $`𝒞`$-covers we consider are non-trivial, i.e. that $`X`$ does not belong to the cover.

For a topological space $`X`$ and a point $`xX`$ we denote:

* $`O𝒞`$ – the family of (open) $`𝒞`$-covers of $`X`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ – the family of $`\omega `$-covers of $`X`$.
* $`𝒦`$ – the family of $`k`$-covers of $`X`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\{AX:x\overline{A}A\}`$.

We also need the notion of groupability (see ).

A countable $`𝒞`$-cover $`𝒰`$ of a space $`X`$ is *groupable* if there is a partition $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of $`𝒰`$ into pairwise disjoint finite sets such that for each $`C𝒞`$, for all but finitely many $`n`$ there is a $`U𝒰_n`$ such that $`CU`$. A countable set $`A\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ is *groupable* if there is a partition $`(B_n:n)`$ of $`A`$ into finite sets such that each neighborhood of $`x`$ has nonempty intersection with all but finitely many $`B_n`$.

Let us denote:

* $`O𝒞^{gp}`$ – the family of groupable $`𝒞`$-covers of $`X`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp}`$ – the family of groupable $`\omega `$-covers of $`X`$.
* $`𝒦^{gp}`$ – the family of groupable $`k`$-covers of $`X`$.
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x^{gp}`$ – the family of groupable elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$.

Let us mention that considering the space $`2^X`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }2^X`$ and $`S2^X`$ we shall use the symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S^+`$ to denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-topology on $`2^X`$. We use $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ and $`𝒦_S`$ studying the $`𝖹^+`$\- and $`𝖥^+`$-topology on $`2^X`$. Similarly for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^+)^{gp}`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S^{gp}`$ and $`𝒦_S^{gp}`$.

## 2.  The Reznichenko property

In 1996, Reznichenko introduced (in a seminar at Moscow State University) the following property for a space $`X`$: For each $`AX`$ and each $`x\overline{A}A`$ there is a countable infinite family $`𝒜`$ of finite pairwise disjoint subsets of $`A`$ such that each neighborhood of $`x`$ meets all but finitely many elements of $`𝒜`$. It is the same as to say that each countable element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ is a member of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x^{gp}`$. This property was studied further in  (under the name *weakly Fréchet-Urysohn*), . In  and  this property was called the *Reznichenko property* and function spaces $`𝖢_p(X)`$ having this property were studied (see also ). In  this property was considered in function spaces $`𝖢_k(X)`$.

Evidently, if a space $`X`$ has the Reznichenko property then it has countable tightness.

Here we investigate the Reznichenko property in hyperspaces.

###### Theorem 1.

For a space $`X`$ and a family $`\mathrm{\Delta }2^X`$ (closed for finite unions and containing all singletons) the following statements are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ has the Reznichenko property;
* For each open set $`YX`$ and each open $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover $`𝒰`$ of $`Y`$ there is a sequence $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of finite pairwise disjoint subsets of $`𝒰`$ such that each $`D\mathrm{\Delta }`$ belongs to some $`U𝒰_n`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}.`$ $`(1)(2)`$: Let $`Y`$ be an open subset of $`X`$ and let $`𝒰`$ be an open $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover of $`Y`$. Then $`𝒜:=𝒰^c`$ is a subset of $`2^X`$ and $`Y^cCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜)`$. Indeed, let $`D\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a subset of $`Y`$. There is a $`U𝒰`$ such that $`DUY`$ and thus $`Y^cU^cD^c`$, i.e. $`U^c(D^c)^+`$ and $`Y^c(D^c)^+`$. So, $`Y^c(D^c)^+𝒜`$, that is $`Y^cCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜)`$. Apply (1) to find a sequence $`(𝒜_n:n)`$ of finite pairwise disjoint subsets of $`𝒜`$ such that each $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-neighborhood of $`Y^c`$ intersects $`𝒜_n`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$. For each $`n`$ let $`𝒰_n=𝒜_n^c`$. The sets $`𝒰_n𝒰`$ are pairwise disjoint (because $`𝒜_n`$’s are) and witness for $`𝒰`$ that $`Y`$ satisfies (2). Let $`DY`$ be an element from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`(D^c)^+`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-neighborhood of $`Y^c`$, so that there is $`n_0`$ such that $`(D^c)^+𝒜_n\mathrm{}`$ for each $`n>n_0`$. So, for each $`n>n_0`$ there exists a set $`A_n𝒜_n`$ with $`A_nD^c`$, i.e. $`DA_n^c𝒰_n`$. This means that (2) holds.

$`(2)(1)`$: Let $`𝒜`$ be a subset of $`2^X`$ and $`S2^X`$ a point such that $`SCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜)𝒜`$. Then $`𝒰:=𝒜^c`$ is a (non-trivial) $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover of the open set $`S^cX`$. Apply (2) to $`S^c`$ and $`𝒰`$. One can choose a sequence $`(𝒱_n:n)`$ of finite pairwise disjoint subsets of $`𝒰`$ such that for each $`DY`$ belonging to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$ there is a $`V𝒱_n`$ with $`DV`$. Let for each $`n`$, $`_n=𝒱_n^c`$. Then the collection $`\{_n:n\}`$ witnesses (1). Let $`(D^c)^+`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-neighborhood of $`S`$. Then $`SD^c`$ implies $`DS^c`$ so that there is $`m`$ such that for all $`n>m`$ there exists a member $`B_n_n`$ with $`DB_n`$, and consequently $`B_n^c(D^c)^+`$. This shows that $`(D^c)^+_n\mathrm{}`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$ and completes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

In fact, we shall prove a general result regarding the Reznichenko property in hyperspaces.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`X`$ be a space and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be subsets of $`2^X`$ closed for finite unions and containing all singletons. Then the following statements are equivalent:

* $`2^X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_A^+,(\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^+)^{gp})`$ for each $`A2^X`$;
* Each open set $`YX`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(O\mathrm{\Delta },O\mathrm{\Sigma }^{gp})`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}.`$ $`(1)(2)`$: Let $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ be a sequence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covers of $`Y`$. Then $`(𝒰_n^c:n)`$ is a sequence of subsets of $`2^X`$ and $`Y^cCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒰_n^c)`$ for each $`n`$. Applying (1) we find a sequence $`(U_n^c:n)`$ such that for each $`n`$ $`U_n𝒰_n`$ and $`=\{U_n^c:n\}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Y^c}^+)^{gp}`$. There is a partition $`=_n_n`$ of $``$ such that each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-neighborhood of $`Y^c`$ meets all but finitely many sets $`_n`$. For each $`n`$ let $`𝒱_n=_n^c`$. The sets $`𝒱_n`$ are pairwise disjoint, finite subsets of $`\{U_n:n\}`$ and show that this set is a groupable $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`Y`$. Let $`SY`$ be a member of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`(S^c)^+`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-neighborhood of $`Y^c`$, so that there is $`n_0`$ such that $`(S^c)^+_n\mathrm{}`$ for each $`n>n_0`$. So, for each $`n>n_0`$ there exists a set $`F_n_n`$ which is a subset of $`S^c`$, i.e. $`SF_n^c𝒱_n`$. This means that $`\{U_n:n\}`$ is a groupable $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`Y`$, hence (2) holds.

$`(2)(1)`$: Let $`(𝒜_n:n)`$ be a sequence of subsets of $`2^X`$ such that a point $`E2^X`$ belongs to $`Cl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜_n)𝒜_n`$ for each $`n`$. For each $`n`$ put $`𝒰_n=𝒜_n^c`$. Apply (2) to the open set $`E^c`$ and the sequence $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-covers of $`E^c`$. We choose a sequence $`(U_n:n𝒰_n)`$ such that for each $`n`$ $`U_n𝒰_n`$ and $`𝒢=\{U_n:n\}`$ is a groupable $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`E^c`$. Suppose that the partition $`𝒢=_n𝒢_n`$ witnesses groupability of $`𝒢`$. Let for each $`n`$, $`A_n=U_n^c𝒜_n`$ and $`_n=𝒢_n^c`$. Then the collection $`\{_n:n\}`$ witnesses that $`\{A_n:n\}`$ a groupable element of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_E^+`$. Indeed, let $`(S^c)^+`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-neighborhood of $`E`$. Then $`ES^c`$ implies $`SE^c`$ so that there is $`k`$ such that for all $`n>k`$ there exists a member $`G_n𝒢_n`$ with $`SG_n`$, and consequently $`G_n^c(S^c)^+`$. This shows that $`(S^c)^+_n\mathrm{}`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The condition (2) in this theorem can be called the *$`(\mathrm{\Delta }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$-selectively Reznichenko property* (of $`2^X`$).

Let us recall that a space $`X`$ is said to have *countable strong fan tightness*  if for each sequence $`(A_n:n)`$ of subsets of $`X`$ and each $`x_n\overline{A}_n`$ there is a sequence $`(x_n:n)`$ such that for each $`n`$ $`x_nA_n`$ and $`x\overline{\{x_n:n\}}`$, i.e. if for each $`xX`$ the selection hypothesis $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\mathrm{\Omega }_x)`$ is satisfied.

It was shown in  that $`(2^X,𝖹^+)`$ (resp. $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$) has countable strong fan tightness if and only if each open set $`YX`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (resp. $`𝖲_1(𝒦,𝒦)`$).

According to  a space $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp})`$ if and only if all finite powers of $`X`$ have the *Gerlits-Nagy property*  (equivalently, the Hurewicz property as well as the Rothberger property). Recall that $`X`$ has the *Rothberger property*  if it satisfies $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$, where $`𝒪`$ is the family of open covers of $`X`$. $`X`$ has the *Hurewicz property*  if for each sequence $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of open covers of $`X`$ there is a sequence $`(𝒱_n:n)`$ such that for each $`n`$$`𝒱_n`$ is a finite subset of $`𝒰_n`$ and each $`xX`$ belongs to $`𝒱_n`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$.

Letting in Theorem 2 $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝔽(X)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝕂(X)`$) we obtain the following two important corollaries.

###### Corollary 3.

For a space $`X`$ the following statements are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖹^+)`$ has the Reznichenko property and countable strong fan tightness;
* If $`Y`$ is an open subset of $`X`$, then all finite powers of $`Y`$ have the Gerlits-Nagy property.

###### Corollary 4.

For a space $`X`$ the following are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$ has the Reznichenko property and countable strong fan tightness;
* Each open set $`YX`$ satisfies $`𝖲_1(𝒦,𝒦^{gp})`$.

Similarly to the proof of Theorem 2 we can prove

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`X`$ be a space and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be subsets of $`2^X`$ closed for finite unions and containing all singletons. Then the following statements are equivalent:

* $`2^X`$ satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Delta }_A^+,(\mathrm{\Sigma }_A^+)^{gp})`$ for each $`A2^X`$;
* Each open set $`YX`$ satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(O\mathrm{\Delta },O\mathrm{\Sigma }^{gp})`$.

A space $`X`$ is said to have *countable fan tightness* ,  if for each $`xX`$ it satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_x,\mathrm{\Omega }_x)`$, i.e. if whenever $`(A_n:n)`$ is a sequence of subsets of $`X`$ and $`x_n\overline{A}_n`$ there are finite sets $`B_nA_n`$, $`n`$, such that $`x\overline{_nB_n}`$.

In  it was proved that $`(2^X,𝖹^+)`$ (resp. $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$) has countable fan tightness if and only if each open set $`YX`$ satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (resp. $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒦,𝒦)`$. A result in  states that all finite powers of of a space $`X`$ have the Hurewicz property if and only if $`X`$ belongs to the class $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

As the corollaries of Theorem 5 we have:

###### Corollary 6.

For a space $`X`$ the following statements are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖹^+)`$ has both the Reznichenko property and countable fan tightness;
* If $`Y`$ is an open subset of $`X`$, then each finite power of $`Y`$ has the Hurewicz property.

###### Corollary 7.

For a space $`X`$ the following are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$ has the Reznichenko property and countable fan tightness;
* Each open set $`YX`$ satisfies $`𝖲_{fin}(𝒦,𝒦^{gp})`$.

## 3. The Pytkeev property

A space $`X`$ has the *Pytkeev property* if for each $`AX`$ and each $`x\overline{A\{x\}}`$ there is a countable collection $`\{A_n:n\}`$ of (countable) infinite subsets of $`A`$ which is a $`\pi `$-network at $`x`$, i.e. each neighborhood of $`x`$ contains some $`A_n`$. This property was introduced in  and then studied in  (where the name Pytkeev space was used) and . Pytkeev’s property in function spaces $`𝖢_p(X)`$ was studied in .

Every (sub)sequential space has the Pytkeev property \[20, Lemma 2\] and every Pytkeev space has the Reznichenko property \[18, Corollary 1.2\].

In this section we consider the Pytkeev property in hyperspaces with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-topologies. We begin by the following general result.

###### Theorem 8.

If $`X`$ is a space and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ subsets of $`2^X`$ containing all singletons and closed for finite unions, then the following are equivalent:

* $`2^X`$ has the $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$-Pytkeev property, i.e. for each $`𝒜2^X`$ and each $`SCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜\{S\})`$ there is a family $`\{_n:n\}`$ of countable infinite subsets of $`𝒜`$ which is a $`\pi `$-network at $`S`$ with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-topology.
* For each open set $`YX`$ and each $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover $`𝒰`$ of $`Y`$ there is a sequence $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of infinite subsets of $`𝒰`$ such that $`\{𝒰_n:n\}`$ is a (not necessarily open) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`Y`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}.`$ $`(1)(2)`$: Let $`𝒰`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover of $`Y`$. Then $`𝒜:=\{U^c:U𝒰\}`$ is a subset of $`2^X`$ and $`Y^cCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜)`$. Apply (1) to find a sequence $`(_n:n)`$ of countable infinite subsets of $`𝒜`$ such that the set $`\{_n:n\}`$ ia a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-$`\pi `$-network at $`Y^c`$. For each $`n`$ denote by $`𝒰_n`$ the subset $`\{U:U^c_n\}`$ of $`𝒰`$. We claim that $`\{𝒰_n:n\}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`Y`$. For any $`SY`$ with $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the set $`(S^c)^+`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-neighborhood of $`Y^c`$ and therefore there is $`m`$ such that $`_m(S^c)^+`$. Therefore, for each $`U^c_m`$ we have $`U^cS^c`$, i.e. $`S\{U:U^c_m\}`$. This means that the collection $`\{𝒰_n:n\}`$ is indeed a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`Y`$.

$`(2)(1)`$: Let $`𝒜`$ be a subset of $`2^X`$ and let $`SCl_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}(𝒜\{S\})`$. Then $`S^c`$ is an open subset of $`X`$ and the family $`𝒰𝒜^c:=\{A^c:A𝒜\}`$ is an open $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover of $`S^c`$. Apply (2) to the set $`S^c`$ and its $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-cover $`𝒰`$ and choose infinite sets $`𝒰_n𝒰`$, $`n`$, such that the family $`\{𝒰_n:n\}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-cover of $`S^c`$. Put for each $`n`$

$$𝒜_n=\{U^c:U𝒰_n\}.$$

Then each $`𝒜_n`$ is an infinite subset of $`𝒜`$. We prove that the collection $`\{𝒜_n:n\}`$ is a $`\pi `$-network at $`S(2^X,\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$.

Let $`(E^c)^+`$, $`EX`$ and $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, be a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$-neighborhood of $`S`$. Then $`SE^c`$ implies $`ES^c`$ so that there is some $`i`$ with $`E𝒰_i`$. Further we have $`𝒜_i(E^c)^+`$, i.e. (1) holds. $`\mathrm{}`$

As consequences of this theorem we obtain the following two results.

###### Corollary 9.

For a space $`X`$ the following statements are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖹^+)`$ has the Pytkeev property;
* For each open set $`YX`$ and each $`\omega `$-cover $`𝒰`$ of $`Y`$ there is a sequence $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of infinite countable subsets of $`𝒰`$ such that $`\{𝒰_n:n\}`$ is an (not necessarily open) $`\omega `$-cover of $`Y`$.

###### Corollary 10.

For a space $`X`$ the following statements are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$ has the Pytkeev property;
* For each open set $`YX`$ and each $`k`$-cover $`𝒰`$ of $`Y`$ there is a sequence $`(𝒰_n:n)`$ of countable infinite subsets of $`𝒰`$ such that $`\{𝒰_n:n\}`$ is a (not necessarily open) $`k`$-cover of $`Y`$.

###### Problem 11.

If $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$ has the Pytkeev property, is $`(2^X,𝖥^+)`$ sequential? What about $`(2^X,𝖹^+)`$?

Remark A It is known that the space $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ is compact with no assumptions on $`X`$ and that a Hausdorff space $`X`$ is locally compact if and only if $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ is Hausdorff. According to a result from , each compact Hausdorff space of countable tightness is a Pytkeev space. On the other hand, in  (see also ) it was shown that for a locally compact Hausdorff space $`X`$ the tightness of $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ is countable if and only if $`X`$ is hereditarily separable and hereditarily Lindelöf. So we have:

###### Theorem 12.

For a locally compact Hausdorff space $`X`$ the following assertions are equivalent:

* $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ has countable tightness;
* $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ has the Reznichenko property;
* $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ has the Pytkeev property;
* $`X`$ is both hereditarily separable and hereditarily Lindelöf.

Remark B According to results from  and  one can suppose that in some models of $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖥𝖢}`$ (in which each compact Hausdorff space of countable tightness is sequential) we have: For a locally compact Hausdorff space $`X`$ each of the conditions (a)–(d) in the previous theorem is equivalent to the assertion $`(2^X,𝖥)`$ is a sequential space.

Remark C Let us consider a selective version of the Pytkeev property. Call a space $`X`$ *selectively Pytkeev* if for each sequence $`(A_n:n)`$ of subsets of $`X`$ and each point $`x_n\overline{A_n\{x\}}`$ there is an infinite family $`\{B_n:n\}`$ of countable infinite sets which is a $`\pi `$-network at $`x`$ and such that for each $`n`$ $`B_nA_n`$. Then one can prove the statements similar to those in Theorem 8 and Corollaries 9 and 10.


format: text

text:
# First order magnetic transition in CeFe2 alloys: Phase-coexistence and metastability

## Abstract

First order ferromagnetic (FM) to antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase transition in doped-CeFe2 alloys is studied with micro-Hall probe technique. Clear visual evidence of magnetic phase-coexistence on micrometer scales and the evolution of this phase-coexistence as a function of temperature, magnetic field and time across the first order FM-AFM transition is presented. Such phase-coexistence and metastability arise as natural consequence of an intrinsic disorder-influenced first order transition. Generality of this phenomena involving other classes of materials is discussed.

The effect of quenched disorder on a first order phase transition has been a subject of considerable scientific interest since late 1970’s . In condensed matter physics, several distinct examples are known; disordered- ferroelectric transitions, precursor effects in martensitic transitions, the vortex matter phases of high temperature superconductors (HTS) and electronic phase-separation in manganites showing colossal magnetoresistance. Of these the last two areas have drawn much attention in recent years, although without general recognition that there exists some common underlying physics. Detailed computational studiesconfirm the applicability of early theoretical picture in manganites, and further emphasise that phase-coexistence can occur in any system in the presence of quenched disorder whenever two states are in competition through a first order phase transition. Here we choose to study a simple binary magnetic system CeFe2 and show clear visual evidence of magnetic phase-coexistence on micrometer scales as the system is driven across the entire first order antiferromagnetic (AFM) to ferromagnetic (FM) transition. We explore how this phase-coexistence evolves as a function of temperature, magnetic field and time highlighting the generic features of a first order FM-AFM transition. The temporal evolution of the phase-coexistence demonstrates that nucleation and growth can lead to percolation of a particular phase and the existence of percolative behaviour is highly dependent on the random disorder landscape. This observation has important implications for other systems where percolative properties dominate macroscopic behaviour.

CeFe2 is a cubic Laves phase ferromagnet (with Curie temperature ($``$ 230K), where small substitution ($`<`$10 $`\%`$) of selected elements such as Co, Al, Ru, Ir, Os and Re can induce a low temperature AFM state with higher resistivity than the FM state . A giant magnetoresistance effect and various memory effects associated with the AFM-FM transition are well documented. We have chosen two CeFe2 alloys with 4 and 5% Ru-doping for our present work. The preparation and characterisation of these polycrystalline alloys have been described in detail in ref. 11, and samples from the same batch have been well-characterised. Neutron diffraction studies of the same samples revealed a discontinuous change of the unit cell volume at the FM-AFM transition, confirming that it is first order. Bulk magnetic measurements were made with a vibrating sample magnetometer (Oxford Instruments) and a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design-MPMS5). The magnetic field profiles close to the sample surface were obtained using a scanning Hall probe system with 5 $`\mu `$m square InSb Hall sensors. The sensor was scanned at a distance of 7 $`\mu `$m from the sample surface, each image comprising of 256x256 pixels. Fields up to 40 kOe can be applied, and the stray induction from the sensor is so small ($``$0.01 Oe) that it does not perturb the sample.

In fig. 1, the main panel shows the global magnetisation (M) versus temperature (T) in an applied field (H) of 5 kOe for the Ce(Fe0.95Ru0.05)2 sample (Ru-5). Two different measurement protocols were used: zero-field cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled cooling (FCC). The paramagnetic(PM)-FM transition is marked by the rapid rise of M with decreasing T below 200K and it is thermally reversible. The FM-AFM transition is marked by the sharp drop in M below 90K and shows substantial thermal hysteresis, which is an essential signature of a first order transition. We have obtained similar M-T curves for this sample as well as for the Ce(Fe0.96Ru0.04)2 sample (Ru-4) in various H. Thermal hysteresis is always present in the AFM-FM transition, and broadens with increasing H, so that when H $`>`$30 kOe (15 kOe) for Ru-5 ( Ru-4 ) the MFCC (T) and MZFC (T) curves fail to merge at least down to 20K. Inset of Fig. 1 shows the schematic H-T phase diagram for the Ru-5 sample based on our M(T) measurements with TNW(TNC) as the temperature of the sharp rise (fall) in M in the ZFC (FCC) path (see Fig. 1). TNC is more closely defined as the temperature where dM/dT in the M vs T plot changes sign from negative to positive. T\* is the low temperature point where MZFC (T) and MFCC (T) merges and T\** is the high temperature counterpart. A qualitatively similar phase diagram is obtained for the Ru-4 sample with lower characteristic temperatures. Note that TNW (H) $`<`$TNC (H), i.e. the onset of nucleation of the AFM state on cooling occurs at a higher temperature than does nucleation of the FM phase during warming. This is an indication of a disorder-influenced first order transition. As discussed below, the sector of the (H,T) phase diagram shown in the inset to Fig. 1 bounded by the TNC(H) ( TNW(H) ) and T\*(H) ( T\**(H) ) lines is metastable in nature and susceptible to energy fluctuations. We identify T\*(H) ( T\**(H) ) as the low tempertaure (high temperature) limit of metastability in the free energy curves across a first order transition19. When the system is trapped in the metastable higher energy state it can be moved into the stable lower energy state by creating energy fluctuations such as cycling T or H- we refer to this process as ”shattering” of the metastable state.

We shall address now on the issue of phase-coexistence and metastability in more details by exploring the FM-AFM transition region with isothermal field variation. In such isothermal experiments one is dealing with constant energy fluctautions (coming from kβT term) all along the transition region. In Fig.2 we present the global isothermal M-H curve of the Ru-5 sample at 60K. We also insert Hall-probe images taken at representative fields around this M-H curve, which are highly informative. In the ascending H-cycle there is a sharp rise in magnetization around 19 kOe indicating the onset of AFM-FM transition. In the H-regime below 19 kOe the sample is entirely in the AFM state, and the nature of the scanning Hall-probe field images remains same. Around 19 kOe random patches of high intensity local stray field appear in the sample, indicating the onset of FM phase in some parts of the sample. FM clusters of various size in the range of 5-20 micrometer are clearly distinguishable. The clusters grow in size and new clusters appear with further increase in H, and some of those merge to give rise to even larger clusters in the range 20-100 micrometer and this process continues until the whole sample reaches the FM state. While decrteasing field from 40 kOe, along with bulk magnetisation the Hall-images also show distinct thermal hysteresis. Traces of FM clusters remain down to 15 kOe, while the sample was completely in the AFM state in the regime H$`<`$19 kOe in the ascending field path. We attribute this to supercooling of the FM state across the first order transition. We show here that a supercooled state i.e. 16 kOe in the descending H cycle, is susceptible to energy fluctuations. A small thermal perturbation in the form of an increase in temperature by 10 K and then bringing the sample back to 60K again, markedly decreases the amount of supercooled FM state. Note that the increase in T by 10 K should drive the system towards the higher temperature FM phase. However, the energy fluctuation associated with this temperature cycling is detrimental for the supercooled FM state. We have seen very same features of phase-coexistence and metastability in micro-Hall probe scanning images, on temperature cycling across the AFM-FM transition while keeping the field constant. The detail results are not shown here for the sake of conciseness. Supercooling here is rationalised with the existence of a lower limit of metastability T\*(H\*) in the free energy curve with the control parameter T(H). We might expect to see a signature of superheating in the same way. The trace of superheated AFM state would remain as a shaded region in an almost completely illuminated image frame. Better resolution of the images is required to reach a firm conclusion in this regard, and locate an upper limit of metastability temperature (field) T\**(H\**).

The sample used for Hall-imaging here is of dimension 2mmx1.2mmx1.2mm, and the images are obtained by zooming on an area of 1mm x 1mm in the central portion of the sample away from the edges. The whole set of experiments were repeated for another sample of dimension 1mmx1.2mmx1.2mm. Exactly the same features are observed, which negates any dominant role of sample geometry. The Hall-probe images taken across the FM-PM transition of both the samples show a continuous decrease of uniformly distributed field intensity, which is both consistent with a second order phase transition and confirmation that the samples are macroscopically chemically homogeneous. We can further rule out gross chemical phase separation with the results of X-ray diffraction and neutron scattering studies. We assert here that purely statistical quenched compositional disorder is at the root of the phase-coexistence observed here. Precisely this kind of intrinsic compositional disorder is thought to give rise to ”tweed structure” in the vicinity of martensitic transitions and to phase-separation on sub-micrometer scale in manganites. The influence of intrinsic compositional disorder (through Ru-substitutions) on the critical fluctuations phenomena at the second order PM-FM transition in the present CeFe2 alloys has earlier been studied through detailed magnetic measurements.

The regions in the Ru-5 sample which go to the FM state first in the ascending field cycle (Fig.2) are very different from those which transform first to the AFM state in the descending field cycle (Fig.2). This is indicative of the local variation of the AFM-FM transition temperature TN or field HM leading to a rough TN(x,y) or HM(x,y) landscape. This distribution of TN and HM gives rise to the impression of global rounding of the transition in the bulk measurements. Our observation is in consonance with the disordered influenced first order transition proposed by Imry and Wortis. A very similar disorder induced rough landscape picture has earlier been proposed for the vortex solid melting in the HTS material BSCCO and materials with a pre-martensitic transition. We have already seen that the traces of the supercooled-FM phase remain in fields well below the onset temperature field of the FM state in the ascending field cycle. If there was a single first order transition field HM ( temperature TN ) the FM clusters would have appeared in the ascending field cycle in the sample first at the positions with relatively low energy barrier for the nucleation of the stable FM phase . Using the same argument, in the descending field cycle the stable AFM phase would appear first at these very points, and these spots should have been the spots of lower field intensity. However, the first FM-patches not only survived in the descending field cycle, but some actually continued to exist as supercooled metastable FM state (see Fig.2). The very same features are observed in the temperature variation measurements ( not shown here). This again emphasised a rough TN(x,y)-HM(x,y) landscape picture.

We provide additional evidence that the phase-coexistence regime bounded by TNC(H) ( TNW(H) ) and T\*(H) ( T\**(H) ) line (see inset of Fig.1) indeed metastable. Fig. 3 shows snap shots of the temporal evolution of the FM-phase clusters while undergoing the field induced AFM-FM transition. In these images T is fixed at 60K and H is fixed at 20 kOe after starting from zero field in the ZFC condition. Twenty scanning Hall-probe images are taken over a period of 168 minutes and two representative images have been selected. Significant temporal growth of the FM clusters after their initial nucleation at random positions of the sample is clearly visible. This is also a strong indication that the AFM state is superheated at least in some regions of the sample.

We have observed qualitatively similar features of phase-coexistence and metastability in the Ru-4 sample both in the bulk magnetization and Hall-imaging studies. In this sample with less doping the growth of the FM phase at the onset of the AFM-FM transition, both as a function of T and H, is faster than the Ru-5 sample. Growth rate can be correlated directly with the sharpness of the M-T and M-H curves in this sample. This relatively fast growth process along with the smaller number of nucleating clusters prohibited a clear-cut observation of the cluster size distributions in the phase-coexistence regime in the imaging experiments. Moreover it is now demonstrated here the way different disorder landscapes can control nucleation and growth. The key point is that if growth is slow enough, percolation will occur over an obnservable H (or T) interval before phase coexistence collapses. In the present study this is clearly true for the x = 0.5 sample. Percolative behaviors can be controlled by quite subtle changes in sample doping. The ramification to the manganite system , for example, is obvious.

In conclusion then we have imaged FM-AFM phase-coexistence across the AFM-FM transition in two Ce(Fe,Ru)2 alloys. This AFM-FM transition bears distinct signatures of a first order phase transition namely, supercooling, superheating and time-relaxation. We have imaged the temporal growth of the clusters inside the phase co-existence regime for the first time and shown that this regime is quite sensitive to any energy fluctuations. Phase-coexistence and metastability arise as a consequence of the intrinsic disorder influenced first order transition. The clusters in the present phase-coexistence regime have a size distribution in the range of 5-100 micrometer. This is larger than the length scale of 0.5 $`\mu `$m observed previously in manganites and discussed in the existing theories. The smallest size of clusters which can be detected in our present study is limited by the resolution of the Hall-probe (5 $`\mu `$m). However, the growth and merger of the clusters as a function of T, H and time lead naturally to the observation of a range of cluster size. It will be interesting now to see whether such a wide scale of cluster size distribution extending to micrometer scales is possible within the existing class of theoretical models or whether our observations stimulate further theoretical refinement. Comparing further with the rough landscape picture of the vortex-matter melting transition, our observation highlights the generality of the phase-coexistence phenomenon. This in turn points to the possibility of the key role of intrinsic disorder influenced first order transitions in other classes of material of current interest namely giant magneto-caloric materials and magnetic shape memory alloys.

SBR acknowledges financial support in the form of a EPSRC visiting fellowship.


text:
# 𝐷𝑊(2𝑛,𝑞), 𝑛≥3, has no ovoid: A single proof

## 1 Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite dual polar space of finite rank $`n3`$, i.e. it is the geometry dual of a polar space $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. The points of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are the $`(n1)`$-dimensional singular subspaces of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the lines of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are the $`(n2)`$-dimensional singular subspaces of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and, more generally, the elements of type $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, are the $`(ni)`$-dimensional singular subspaces of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ belongs to the diagram

An ovoid of a dual polar space is a point set that meets each line in exactly one point. It is an outstanding conjecture that in finite classical dual polar spaces of rank at least three no ovoid exists. By Pasini and Shpectorov , the complement of an ovoid of a dual polar space of rank $`3`$ cannot be flag-transitive. Recently, Cooperstein and Pasini  have proved that the finite symplectic dual polar space $`DW(6,q)`$ for $`q`$ odd has no ovoid. Together with a similar non-existence result for $`q`$ even by Shult to be found in \[3, 2.8\], $`DW(6,q)`$ has no ovoid.

Since we restrict the considerations to finite dual polar spaces $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the polar space $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ dual of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is classical by Tits’ classification of polar spaces. Suppose $`O`$ is an ovoid of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The ovoid $`O`$ intersects each quad of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in an ovoid of a generalized quadrangle. The quads are either grids if $`t=1`$ or classical generalized quadrangles of order $`(s,t)`$. Since we assume they admit ovoids and lines aren’t short, i.e. $`t2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the dual of the symplectic polar space $`W(6,q)`$, the orthogonal polar space $`O^{}(8,q)`$ or possibly the hermitian polar space $`H(7,q^2)`$, $`q3`$, with the quads being generalized quadrangles $`O(4,q)`$, $`H(4,q^2)`$ or the dual of $`H(5,q^2)`$, respectively (for the classical generalized quadrangles admitting ovoids, see Payne and Thas ). Note that the existence of an ovoid of the dual of the hermitian generalized quadrangle $`H(5,q^2)`$, $`q3`$, i.e. a spread of $`H(5,q^2)`$, is an open problem.

In this paper, we simplify the proof of  and generalize it such that we can apply it to any dual polar space of rank $`3`$ hypothetically admitting ovoids. For the classical dual polar spaces, the counting leads to a contradiction only for the symplectic dual polar space $`DW(6,q)`$. However, it is independent from the parity of $`q`$, whence our new prove comprises the results of Shult (\[3, 2.8\]) and Cooperstein and Pasini .

###### Theorem 1

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has an ovoid, then $`s^2st^2t0`$. In particular, $`DW(6,q)`$ has no ovoid.

Theorem 1 generalizes to symplectic dual polar spaces $`DW(2n,q)`$ of finite rank $`n4`$ since the point-line residue of each element of type $`4`$ of $`DW(2n,q)`$ is a dual polar space $`DW(6,q)`$ which would intersect an ovoid of $`DW(2n,q)`$ in an ovoid of $`DW(6,q)`$ in contradiction to Theorem 1.

###### Corollary 2

A finite symplectic dual polar space $`DW(2n,q)`$, $`n3`$, has no ovoid. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Proof of the Theorem

We recall the notation and introduce some more terminology. For an element $`x`$ of a geometry $`G`$ of diameter $`d`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$, $`G_i(x)`$ denotes the set of points of $`G`$ at distance $`i`$ from $`x`$ in the collinearity graph of $`G`$.

Before starting the proof, we introduce the projection $`\pi _E`$ of the point set of a dual polar space onto the point set of an arbitrary element $`E`$ of type at least $`2`$. Since dual polar spaces of rank $`n`$ are near $`2n`$-gons (cf. Cameron ), for any point $`p`$ and any element $`E`$ of the dual polar space not on $`p`$, there is a unique point $`\pi _E(p)`$ in $`E`$ nearest $`p`$. In setting $`\pi _E(x)=x`$ for all points $`x`$ in $`E`$, the so-defined mapping $`\pi _E`$ maps two collinear points of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ either onto the same point of $`E`$ or onto two collinear points of $`E`$. Thus, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a dual polar space of rank $`3`$, the following proposition which mainly serves as reference for Proposition 5, is immediate.

###### Proposition 3

If $`\omega `$ is a quad of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then a line $`l`$ disjoint from $`\omega `$ is mapped onto the line $`\pi _\omega (l)`$ of $`\omega `$ such that for each point $`p`$ on $`l`$, there is a unique point on $`\pi _\omega (l)`$ collinear with $`p`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us now turn to the proof of Theorem 1. We suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a finite dual polar space of rank $`3`$ and the generalized quadrangle consisting of the points and lines of a quad of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has order $`(s,t)`$ with $`t2`$. Moreover, since we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has an ovoid $`O`$ and the quads are classical generalized quadrangles, it follows $`st`$ (cf. Payne and Thas ).

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be a point of $`O`$. Then the set $`H`$ of points of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at non-maximal distance from $`\mathrm{}`$ is the so-called singular hyperplane with deepest point $`\mathrm{}`$, whence $`H=\{\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\mathrm{})`$. Denote the affine dual polar space consisting of the elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ not contained in $`H`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, i.e. the point set of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\mathrm{})`$. We call the lines of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ not contained in the singular hyperplane $`H`$ the affine lines of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=O\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Since both $`O`$ and $`H`$ are hyperplanes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, a line $`l`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ not contained in $`H`$ has exactly one point $`l^O=lO`$ of the ovoid $`O`$ and one point $`l^{\mathrm{}}=lH`$ of $`H`$. The main idea of Cooperstein and Pasini  is to count pairs $`(l,m)`$ of concurrent affine lines of the affine dual polar space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ such that the unique point $`l^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the line $`l`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`H`$ lies in $`O`$, i.e. $`l^{\mathrm{}}=l^O`$, and the unique point $`m^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the line $`m`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`H`$ does not belong to $`O`$, i.e. $`m^{\mathrm{}}m^O`$. Using Cauchy’s inequality, their final conclusion for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=DW(6,q)`$, $`q`$ odd, is $`2q0`$ proving no ovoid exists.

We follow most of the proof of Cooperstein and Pasini  and most of their notation. The only modification is the method to prove Proposition 5 below. It allows us to apply the final argument of  to arbitrary finite dual polar spaces. In particular, it includes $`DW(6,q)`$ for $`q`$ even.

###### Proposition 4

It holds $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=s^3t^3`$, $`|O|=(st+1)(st^2+1)`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|=st^3(s1)`$.

Proof. Since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=(t+1)(st+1)(st^2+1)`$, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{})|=(t^2+t+1)s`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\mathrm{})|=|\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{})|(t^2+t)s/(t+1)=(t^2+t+1)st`$, it follows

$$|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=|\mathrm{\Delta }||\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\mathrm{})||\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\mathrm{})|1=s^3t^3.$$

We determine $`|O|`$ by

$$|O|=\frac{\mathrm{\#}\text{ lines}}{\mathrm{\#}\text{ lines per point}}=\frac{(st+1)(st^2+1)(t^2+t+1)}{t^2+t+1}=(st+1)(st^2+1).$$

Since each quad on $`\mathrm{}`$ has $`st`$ points of $`O\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and none of the points of $`O`$ at distance two from $`\mathrm{}`$ belongs to two quads on $`\mathrm{}`$, it follows

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }|=|O|(t^2+t+1)st1=st^3(s1).\mathrm{}$$

Following Cooperstein and Pasini , for a point $`p𝒢:=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ let

$$\mu _p:=|\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(p)\mathrm{\Omega }|$$

be the number of ovoid points collinear with $`p`$ not belonging to the singular hyperplane $`H`$. Since there are $`t^2+t+1`$ lines on $`p`$ all meeting $`O`$ in exactly one point, $`t^2+t+1\mu _p`$ lines on $`p`$ meet $`O`$ in points of $`O\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then the number of pairs of concurrent lines of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one meeting $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the other meeting $`O\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is

$$N:=\underset{p𝒢}{}\mu _p(t^2+t+1\mu _p)$$

since any two such lines meet in a point of $`𝒢`$.

We determine $`N`$ in the following. Denote by $``$ the set of affine lines of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ not meeting $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and by $``$ the set of affine lines of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ meeting $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`l`$ and $`m`$, i.e. $`l^{\mathrm{}}OH=O\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`m^{\mathrm{}}HO`$. We set

$`\mu ^{}(l)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pl}{}}\mu _p\text{ and}`$
$`\mu ^+(m)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pm𝒢}{}}\mu _p.`$
The number $`\mu ^{}(l)`$ is the number of affine lines of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ concurrent with $`l`$ and meeting $`O`$ in a point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Gamma }O`$. Then the number $`N`$ of pairs $`(l,m)`$ of concurrent affine lines with $`l`$ and $`m`$ is

$$N=\underset{l}{}\mu ^{}(l).$$

The following proposition determines the numbers $`\mu ^{}(l)`$ and $`\mu ^+(m)`$ showing the numbers are independent from the choice of the particular lines $`l`$ and $`m`$. Note that the number $`\mu ^+(m)`$ will be used lateron, too.

###### Proposition 5

For $`l`$ and $`m`$, it holds $`\mu ^{}(l)=(s1)(t^2+t)`$ and $`\mu ^+(m)=(s1)(t^2+t+1)(t^2+t)`$.

Proof. To count the points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ collinear with $`l`$, we have to subtract the number $`M`$ of points of $`OH`$ collinear with $`l`$ from the number $`s(t^2+t)`$ of all points of $`O`$ collinear with $`l`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`l`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(\mathrm{})`$ in the point $`l^{\mathrm{}}=lH`$, there is a unique quad $`\delta `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$ meeting $`l`$, namely in $`l^{\mathrm{}}`$. For each quad $`\omega \delta `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$, the affine line $`l`$ is projected by $`\pi _\omega `$ onto the line $`\pi _\omega (l)`$ which does not go through $`\mathrm{}`$ (cf. Proposition 3). Hence $`\pi _\omega (l)`$ contains exactly one point of $`(OH)\{\mathrm{}\}`$. For any two quads $`\omega ,\tau \delta `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$, the points $`\pi _\omega (l)O`$ and $`\pi _\tau (l)O`$ are distinct. Hence there are $`t^2+t`$ points of $`OH`$ collinear with $`l`$. It follows

$$\underset{pl}{}\mu _p=s(t^2+t)(t^2+t)=(s1)(t^2+t).$$

Similarly, let $`\gamma `$ be the quad on $`\mathrm{}`$ meeting the line $`m`$. As before, for each quad $`\sigma \gamma `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\pi _\sigma (m)`$ contains a unique point of $`(OH)\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Since the affine part of $`m`$ has only $`s1`$ points of $`𝒢`$ and there are $`t^2+t`$ quads on $`\mathrm{}`$ distinct from $`\gamma `$, it follows

$$\underset{pm𝒢}{}\mu _p=(s1)(t^2+t+1)(t^2+t)\mathrm{}$$

In particular, $`\mu ^{}(l)`$ and $`\mu ^+(m)`$ do not depend on the lines $`l`$ and $`m`$. Thus $`N=_l\mu ^{}(l)=||\mu ^{}(l)`$ for some line $`l`$. Since $``$ is the set of affine lines meeting $`HO`$ and since $`|HO|=st(t^2+t+1)`$, it follows $`||=st^3(t^2+t+1)`$. Thus the number $`N`$ follows:

###### Corollary 6

$`N=st^4(s1)(t+1)(t^2+t+1)`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

To determine $`_{p𝒢}\mu _p`$, consider the following partition of the point set of $`𝒢=\mathrm{\Gamma }O`$. Let $`\kappa `$ be a quad on $`\mathrm{}`$. Then the affine lines of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ meeting $`\kappa `$, considered as lines of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, partition the point set of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These affine lines fall in two classes $`K^{}`$ and $`K^+`$ where $`K^{}`$ is the set of affine lines meeting $`\kappa `$ in points of $`O\{\mathrm{}\}`$, i.e. their affine part does not meet $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`K^+`$ is the set of affine lines meeting $`\kappa `$ in points of $`(\kappa \mathrm{}^{})O`$, i.e. their affine part meets $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`|\kappa O|=st+1`$, it follows $`|(\kappa \mathrm{}^{})O|=st(s1)`$. Thus $`|K^{}|=st^3`$ and $`|K^+|=st^3(s1)`$. It follows

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒢}{}}\mu _p`$ $`=`$ $`|K^{}|\mu ^{}+|K^+|\mu ^+`$
$`=`$ $`st^3(s1)(t^2+t)+st^3(s1)((s1)(t^2+t+1)(t^2+t))`$
$`=`$ $`st^3(s1)^2(t^2+t+1)`$
With Corollary 6 it follows

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒢}{}}\mu _p^2`$ $`=`$ $`(t^2+t+1){\displaystyle \underset{p𝒢}{}}\mu _pN`$
$`=`$ $`(t^2+t+1)st^3(s1)^2(t^2+t+1)st^4(s1)(t+1)(t^2+t+1)`$
$`=`$ $`st^3(t^2+t+1)(s1)((t^2+t+1)(s1)(t^2+t))`$
We are now in the position to conclude the proof by Cauchy’s inequality

$$|𝒢|\underset{p𝒢}{}\mu _p^2\left(\underset{p𝒢}{}\mu _p\right)^2.$$

Indeed, it holds

$$|𝒢|\underset{p𝒢}{}\mu _p^2=s^2t^6(s^2s+1)(t^2+t+1)(s1)((t^2+t+1)(s1)(t^2+t))$$

leading with $`_{p𝒢}\mu _p=st^3(s1)^2(t^2+t+1)`$ to the inequality

$$(s^2s+1)((t^2+t+1)(s1)(t^2+t))(s1)^3(t^2+t+1).$$

This is equivalent to

$$s^2st^2t0.$$

Note that the counting arguments do not depend on the particular polar space under consideration. In particular, they are independent from the parity of $`s`$ or $`t`$.

Since the existence of an ovoid in a classical generalized quadrangle forces $`st`$, the inequality leads to a contradiction only if $`s=t`$. From the dual polar spaces admitting ovoids in quads, only $`\mathrm{\Delta }DW(6,q)`$ has orders $`s=t=q`$ leading to the contradiction $`2q0`$. Hence the dual polar space $`DW(6,q)`$ does not admit any ovoid whereas we cannot deduce anything about the two other classical dual polar spaces $`DO^{}(8,q)`$ admitting ovoids of quads and $`DH(7,q^2)`$ possibly admitting ovoids of quads.

H. Pralle
Institute for Geometry, Algebra and Discrete Mathematics
TU Braunschweig
Pockelsstr. 14
38106 Braunschweig, Germany
H.Pralle@tu-bs.de

MSC 2000: 51A15, 51A50

Key words: dual polar spaces, hyperplanes, near $`2n`$-gons, ovoids.


text:
# The Quest for Microwave Foreground X

## 1. INTRODUCTION

When doing precision cosmology with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), a key challenge is accurately modeling and correcting for Galactic foreground contamination. There are currently three indisputably identified Galactic foregrounds: synchrotron radiation, free-free emission and thermal (vibrational) emission from dust grains. In the last few years, however, evidence for the existence of a fourth component began to mount. This component, nicknamed “Foreground X”, is spatially correlated with 100 $`\mu `$m dust emission but with a spectrum rising towards lower frequencies (in a manner that is incompatible with thermal dust emission), subsequently flattening and turning down somewhere around 15 GHz.

This fourth component was first discovered in the COBE DMR data by Kogut et al. (1996a, 1996b), who tentatively identified it as free-free emission555 Draine and Lazarian (1998) argued against the free-free hypothesis on energetic grounds, and suggested that Foreground X was caused by dust after all, but via rotational rather that vibrational emission. In the literature, Foreground X is sometimes called “anomalous” emission, and the most popular interpretation has been that it is emitted by spinning dust grains. There is also the possibility that Foreground X is due to magnetic dipole emission from ferromagnetic grain materials (Draine and Lazarian 1999).. It has since been detected in a variety of data sets such as Saskatoon (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 1997), OVRO (Leitch et al. 1997), the 19 GHz survey (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 1998), Tenerife (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 1999, 2002; Mukherjee et al. 2001), QMAP (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2000), the ACME/SP94 data (Hamilton and Ganga, 2001), Python V (Mukherjee et al. 2003), the WMAP data (Lagache 2003; Finkbeiner 2003), as well as in some other non-CMB data sets between 8-15 GHz (Finkbeiner et al. 2002; Finkbeiner et al. 2003, hereafter F03). Adding pieces to this puzzle, joint re-analysis of COBE DMR & the 19 GHz survey (Banday et al. 2003) and OVRO & SP94 data (Mukherjee et al. 2002) also show the presence of Foreground-X. Although a consensus about the existence of Foreground X had still not been reached, the case for spinning dust was beginning to look quite solid prior to the WMAP data release666 http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/..

The WMAP team challenged this interpretation in their foreground analysis (Bennett et al. 2003b, hereafter B03b), arguing that there is still no solid evidence for an anomalous source of microwave emission at these wavelengths (i.e., no Foreground X). They argued that all foreground emission observed at the five WMAP frequencies could be accounted for with a model involving only three foreground emission components, which they produced maps of and interpreted as (thermally radiating) dust, free-free emission and synchrotron radiation, respectively.

Using the Green Bank Plane Survey maps777 The Green Bank Galactic Plane Survey maps the Galactic plane within $`\pm `$4, with a resolution of FWHM=11.2 at 8.35 GHz and FWHM=8 at 14.35 GHz. See Langston et al. (2000) for more details., F03 have challenged these conclusions, arguing that the WMAP team “synchrotron” template is in fact not dominated by synchrotron radiation, but by some dust-related Galactic emission process, perhaps spinning dust grains. Given this dispute about whether the WMAP K-band “synchrotron map” produced by B03b is really a map of synchrotron, let us hereafter refer to it as the mystery map, to avoid interpretative language.

The logic behind identifying the WMAP team dust and free-free maps with these two physical emission sources is that they not only exhibit the right frequency dependence (by construction, from the way they were created) but spatially resembled external maps of 100 $`\mu `$m dust emission and H$`\alpha `$ emission, respectively. F03 argue that, in constrast, the WMAP team mystery map does not strongly resemble external synchrotron maps at lower frequencies such as the 408 MHz Haslam map (Haslam et al. 1982). B03b argue that this is due to strong spatial variations in the spectral index, whereas F03 argue that it is because the map (essentially defined a component having a synchrotron-like spectrum across the WMAP frequencies 23-93 GHz) is dominated by dust-related emission, not by synchrotron emission.

The reason that such anomalous dust emission is so hard to pin down is that its intensity is predicted to peak around 10-15 GHz, making it difficult to detect in the available radio surveys below 10 GHz such as those used by B03b (where it becomes subdominant to synchrotron radiation) and in the WMAP data at 23GHz and above (where its spectral index is similar to synchrotron and free-free emission). A smoking gun test for Foreground X therefore involves quantifying its behavior around 10-15 GHz, to see whether its spectrum continues to rise towards lower frequencies like synchrotron radiation or turns over.

It is important to point out, however, that although F03 used a data set in the desirable frequency range (8 & 14 GHz) for the study of Foreground X, their survey was highly confined to the Galactic plane ($`|b|<4^{}`$). In this context, one could argue that F03 results do not necessarily extend to higher Galactic latitudes. The purpose of this Letter is to investigate if such behavior can be extendible to higher Galactic latitudes and larger areas of the sky. In order to do so, we use the Tenerife 10 and 15 GHz maps, cross-correlating them with the WMAP K-band mystery map.

## 2. CROSS-CORRELATION METHOD

To clarify the Foreground X puzzle, our goal is to measure the frequency dependence of the emission traced by the WMAP mystery map down to 10 GHz. We do this by cross-correlating it with the Tenerife observations (Gutiérrez et al. 2000, hereafter G00), which remain the most accurate large-area sky maps at 10 and 15 GHz and have not previously been spatially compared with the WMAP maps. Details of the cross-correlation method can be found in de Oliveira-Costa et al. (1997). This method models the vector of the Tenerife data $`𝐲`$ as a sum

$$𝐲=𝐱\mathrm{a}+𝐱_{CMB}+𝐧,$$
(1)
where $`𝐧`$ is a vector that contains the Tenerife detector noise, $`𝐱`$ is a vector that contains the foreground template convolved with the Tenerife triple-beam (i.e., $`𝐱_i`$ would be the $`i^{th}`$ observation if the sky had looked like the mystery map), and “$`\mathrm{a}`$” is a number that gives the level at which this foreground template is present in the Tenerife data.

The estimate of “$`\mathrm{a}`$” is computed by minimizing $`\chi ^2(𝐲𝐱\mathrm{a})^T𝐂^1(𝐲𝐱\mathrm{a})`$, where the covariance matrix $`𝐂`$ includes both the experimental noise $`𝐧`$ and CMB sample variance in the CMB signal $`𝐱_{CMB}`$. Note that these quoted error bars include the effects of both noise and chance alignments between the Tenerife data and the template map. The minimum-variance estimate of “$`\mathrm{a}`$” is

$$\widehat{\mathrm{a}}=\frac{𝐱^T𝐂^1𝐲}{𝐱^T𝐂^1𝐱},$$
(2)
with variance

$$\mathrm{SS}\widehat{\mathrm{a}}\widehat{\mathrm{a}}^T\widehat{\mathrm{a}}\widehat{\mathrm{a}}^T=\left[𝐱^T𝐂^1𝐱\right]^1.$$
(3)
We also perform correlations between the mystery map and less noisy data sets such as the five WMAP CMB maps. In these cases, the noise variance is so small that its exact value is irrelevant for our particular applications, so we simply use a diagonal covariance matrix $`𝐂=\sigma ^2𝐈`$. Equations (2) and (3) then become simply

$$\widehat{\mathrm{a}}=\frac{𝐱𝐲}{𝐱𝐱},\mathrm{SS}=\frac{\sigma ^2}{|𝐱|^2}.$$
(4)
Note that when using equation (3), we evaluate $`𝐂`$ using the known noise properties of the Tenerife data (G00). However, when using equation (4), we simply measure $`\sigma `$ directly from the data, since it corresponds to the scatter around the best fit linear fit:

$$\sigma =\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(y_i\widehat{\mathrm{a}}𝐱\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
We use the latest version of the Tenerife data (Mukherjee et al. 2001), which has the estimated point source contribution (G00) removed before calculating the correlations. We also used the first-year WMAP CMB maps at 23 (K-band), 33 (Ka-band), 40 (Q-band), 60 (V-band) & 93 (W-band) GHz (Bennett et al. 2003a), the WMAP K-band mystery map888 We also removed point sources from the mystery map before calculating the correlations. Using the point sources catalogue of B03b, we replaced the temperature for all pixels centered within a circle of 1 radius around each source by the mean temperature in an annulus between 1 and 2 around the source. This removal does not have a major effect on the results. Removing the point sources lowers the rms fluctuations in the mystery map by about 10%. (B03b), and a foreground-cleaned CMB map made from a combination of the five WMAP CMB maps (Tegmark et al. 2003, hereafter TOH03). Before performing the correlations, all maps were convolved with the Tenerife triple-beam function, and data not overlapping the Tenerife observing region was discarded.

## 3. Cross-correlation results

Cross-correlation results are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. All fits were done for one template at a time, and statistically significant ($`>2\sigma `$) correlations listed in this table are in boldface. We perform our basic analysis with a $`|b|>20^{}`$ Galactic latitude cut to facilitate comparison with older results in the literature.

### 3.1. Validation of the Tenerife maps against WMAP

As a first reality check, we cross-correlate the Tenerife data with the TOH03 map for a $`|b|>20^{}`$ Galactic cut, obtaining $`\widehat{\mathrm{a}}=0.80\pm 0.12`$ at 15 GHz and $`\widehat{\mathrm{a}}=0.59\pm 0.19`$ at 10 GHz. This provides a beautiful validation of the Tenerife observations, showing a detection of CMB signal at about the $`7\sigma `$ level at 15 GHz and at the $`3\sigma `$ level at 10 GHz. This also confirms and further strengthens the results of Lineweaver et al. (1995), who cross-correlated Tenerife and COBE DMR data (Smoot et al. 1992; Bennett et al. 1996) at high Galactic latitudes and concluded that the CMB signal was consistent between the two data sets. Using only the smaller sky area outside a $`|b|>30^{}`$ Galactic cut, we still detect the CMB signal at about the $`6\sigma `$ level at 15 GHz but no longer obtain a significant detection at 10 GHz, where the Tenerife noise levels are higher.

This cross-correlation with WMAP allows an independent test of the calibration of the Tenerife measurements. For a $`|b|>20^{}`$ Galactic cut, the above-mentioned numbers show that the relative calibration between WMAP and Tenerife is marginally consistent with being unity, with a slight preference for lower Tenerife values at the level of $`1.7\sigma `$ at 15 GHz and $`2.2\sigma `$ at 10 GHz. Down-calibrating Tenerife by say 10% would be comfortably consistent with both the WMAP correlations reported here and previous estimates by the Tenerife team. The 10 GHz error bar should be taken with a grain of salt, since the 10 GHz Tenerife map appears dominated by foregrounds rather than CMB. This means that the above-mentioned 10 GHz error bars are likely to underestimate the true uncertainty by not including the effect of chance foreground alignments with the TOH03 map.

In what follows, we down-calibrate the Tenerife maps by 10% to be pedantic. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on our conclusions, which hinge on a discrepancy of an order of magnitude rather than at this level of tens of percent.

### 3.2. Foreground X results

We then cross-correlate the Tenerife data with the WMAP-K mystery map – see Figure 1 and Table 1 for results. To extend Figure 1 to higher frequencies, we also perform the cross-correlation replacing the Tenerife data by the five WMAP CMB maps. All measurements $`\delta T`$ plotted in Figure 1 are obtained by multiplying the measured coefficient $`\widehat{\mathrm{a}}`$ by $`\sigma _{Gal}`$, the rms fluctuations in the WMAP-K mystery map convolved with the Tenerife triple-beam. This means that one can interpret these numbers as being the signal that is explained by (or traced by) the WMAP-K mystery map at different frequencies. The triangles correspond to the correlations at $`|b|>20^{}`$ cut. For comparison, we plot theoretical models for synchrotron (cyan/light grey) and Foreground X (or spinning dust – red/grey) models, assuming a synchrotron spectrum $`\delta T\nu ^{2.8}`$ and a spinning dust spectrum from Draine & Lazarian (1998), normalized to the $`|b|>20^{}`$ cut at 23 GHz added to a 20K thermal dust component normalized at 90 GHz.

Figure 1 shows that if the WMAP-K mystery map were strongly dominated by synchrotron emission, as assumed in B03b, then our $`|b|>20^{}`$ $`\delta T`$-measurement should have been about an order of magnitude larger at 15 GHz and about two order of magnitudes larger at 10 GHz. Even with a shallow spectral slope $`\nu ^{2.3}`$, the discrepancy is a factor of five at 15 GHz. The fact that we observe a plateau instead, with a hint of a down-turn, strongly disfavors this synchrotron hypothesis and agrees better with the F03 interpretation that the mystery map is dominated by Foreground X, i.e., anomalous dust emission.

For this conclusion to be valid, we need to close an important loophole. B03b point out that the poor correlation between the mystery map and low-frequency synchrotron maps could be due to variations in the synchrotron spectral index across the sky. Tegmark (1998) quantifies this effect, showing that if $`\delta T\nu ^\alpha `$ and the spectral index $`\alpha `$ varies with an rms $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ across the sky, then correlations of the type that we have measured are suppressed by a factor

$$re^{\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \mathrm{ln}\frac{\nu _2}{\nu _1}\right)^2},$$
(6)
where $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are the two frequencies involved. Comparing $`\nu _1=15`$ GHz and $`\nu _2=23GHz`$ for our $`|b|>20^{}`$ case, an $`\alpha =2.8`$ synchrotron model would predict $`\delta T(\nu _1)/\delta T(\nu _2)=(15/23)^{2.8}3.3`$ whereas we measured $`\delta T(\nu _1)/\delta T(\nu _2)=0.46\pm 0.15`$, i.e., a factor of seven discrepancy. The MID foreground model from Tegmark et al.  (2000) has $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.15`$, which according to equation (6) gives a completely negligible suppression factor $`r0.998`$ (since the two frequencies are so close together). Even the extreme assumption $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =1`$ gives the negligible suppression $`r0.9`$, i.e., a mere 10% effect and nowhere near explaining the factor of seven. In summary, our analysis is rather immune to the effect of spectral index variations, since the Tenerife observing frequencies are so close to those of WMAP. In contrast, equation (6) shows that the correlation between the WMAP K-band and say the 408 MHz Haslam map would be suppressed by a dramatic factor of four for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.4`$, since the frequency lever arm is much longer.

Also, assuming that all rms signal seen by WMAP-K mystery map at $`|b|>20^{}`$ cut is due to synchrotron emission, we should expect to have a synchrotron signal of 18.7(10/23)-2.8 $``$ 192.6 $`\mu `$K at 10 GHz and 18.7(15/23)-2.8 $``$ 61.9 $`\mu `$K at 15 GHz. For comparison, the observed Tenerife rms CMB signal is $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}=30_{11}^{+15}`$ $`\mu `$K (G00).

## 4. Discussion

The spectacular WMAP data has provided crucial new information about Foreground X. Although the WMAP analyses by Lagache (2003) and Finkbeiner (2003) suggest the presence of Foreground X across the WMAP frequencies (23-93 GHz), they cannot alone rule out the hypothesis of B03b that there is no Foreground X, merely a dust-correlated synchrotron component with strong spatial variations in the spectral index. The smoking gun test for Foreground X therefore involves quantifying its behavior around 10-15 GHz, to see whether its spectrum continues to rise towards lower frequencies like synchrotron radiation or turns over.

A joint analysis of the WMAP data with the Green Bank Galactic Plane Survey makes clear that the Foreground X provides a much better fit to the data between 8 and 93 GHz than the synchrotron hypothesis could (F03). It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Green Bank Galactic Plane Survey maps the sky only at very low Galactic latitudes, leaving open the question of whether the F03 results extend to the higher Galactic latitudes that are relevant for precision cosmology. The Tenerife–WMAP-K mystery map correlations that we have measured provide the missing information in this puzzle, quantifying the behavior of Foreground X at higher Galactic latitudes than studied by F03 and lower frequencies than observed by WMAP.

Cross-correlating Tenerife with a foreground cleaned WMAP CMB map shows that the Tenerife CMB data agrees well with WMAP, detecting the WMAP CMB signal at about $`7\sigma `$. Cross-correlating Tenerife with the WMAP-K mystery map shows that the mystery map cannot be dominated by synchrotron emission at Galactic latitudes $`|b|>20^{}`$, since this would give 15 GHz measurements almost an order of magnitude larger than observed and even worse discrepancies at 10 GHz. Instead, we find that the Foreground X spectrum has a plateau and a hint of a down-turn below 20 GHz, just as predicted in spinning dust models.

We would like to thank Douglas Finkbeiner for discussions that motivated this work as well as for helpful comments on the manuscript. We also would like to thank Bruce Draine for helpful comments on the manuscript. Support was provided by the NASA grant NAG5-11099, NSF grant AST-0134999, and fellowships from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Cottrell Foundation. We acknowledge the NASA office of Space Sciences, the WMAP flight team, and all those who helped to process and analyze the WMAP data.

REFERENCES

Bennett, C.L., et al. 1996, ApJ, 464, L1

Bennett, C.L., et al. 2003a, ApJ, 583, 1

Bennett, C.L., et al. 2003b, ApJSS, 148, 97 (B03b)

Banday, A.J., et al. 2003, astro-ph/0302181

de Oliveira-Costa, A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 482, L17

de Oliveira-Costa, A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, L9

de Oliveira-Costa, A., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, L9

de Oliveira-Costa, A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 542, L5

de Oliveira-Costa, A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 363

Draine, B.T., and Lazarian, A. 1998, ApJ, 494, L19

Draine, B.T., and Lazarian, A. 1999, ApJ, 512, 740

Finkbeiner, D.P., et al. 2002, ApJ, 566, 898

Finkbeiner, D.P. 2003, astro-ph/0311547

Finkbeiner, D.P., et al. 2003, ApJ, submitted (F03)

Gutiérrez, C.M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 47 (G00)

Hamilton, J.C., and Ganga, K.M. 2001, A&A, 368, 760

Haslam, C.G.T., et al. 1982, A&AS 47, 1

Kogut, A., et al. 1996a, ApJ, 460, 1

Kogut, A., et al. 1996b, ApJ, 464, L5

Lagache, G. 2003, A&A, 405, 813

Langston, G. et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 2801

Leitch, E.M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 486, L23

Lineweaver, C.H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 448, 482

Mukherjee, P. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 320(2), 224

Mukherjee, P. et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 692

Mukherjee, P. et al. 2002, ApJ, 579, 83

Smoot, G.F. et al. 1992, ApJL, 396, L1

Tegmark, M. 1998, ApJ, 502, 1

Tegmark, M. et al. 2000, ApJ, 530, 133

Tegmark, M. et al. 2003, astro-ph/0302496 (TOH03)


text:
# Effective collective barrier for magnetic relaxation in frozen ferrofluids

(2 December, 2003)

## Abstract

Magnetic relaxation and frequency response were measured in frozen ferrimagnetic colloids of different concentrations. A crossover from reversible to irreversible behavior is observed for concentrated colloids. In irreversible state, magnetic relaxation is time-logarithmic over seven orders of magnitude of experimental time windows. A master curve construction within mean field phenomenological model is applied to extract effective collective barrier as a function of the irreversible magnetization. The barrier logarithmically diverges, providing evidence for self-organized critical behavior during magnetic relaxation in frozen ferrofluids.

ferrofluid, magnetic relaxation  magnetic relaxation, ferrofluids

Slow magnetic dynamics in assemblies of superparamagnetic particles is a subject of intense experimental and theoretical research. Frozen ferrofluids provide a model system for such studies due to controllable interparticle separation and reduced agglomeration (compared to powders). Various models of single-particle neel ; stoner ; jonsson1 ; lierop  and collective behavior jonsson1 ; luo ; jonsson ; zhang ; mamiya ; dormann  in these systems were explored. It is generally agreed that collective effects play an important role, with long-range dipole-dipole interactions as a dominant mechanism luo ; dormann . However, effects related to finite size of a correlated volume for magnetic moment reorientation eberbeck ; denisov  and possible spin-glass state mamiya ; dormann  add complexity to the problem. In all cases, the question of the effective energy barrier governing magnetic relaxation and especially its dependence on the distance from the equilibrium is crucially important. Knowing the evolution of the effective barrier with the driving force can help to distinguish between models that predict its increase dormann  or decrease morup  with the increase of the strength of interparticle interactions as well as sort out different relaxation regimes garanin .

Phenomenological description of the magnetic relaxation provides a useful link between the experiment and the microscopic models. The analogy of slow dynamics in the irreversible state of assemblies of magnetic nanoparticles with similar phenomena of flux creep in type-II superconductors was first noticed in lottis  and later formulated in a closed phenomenological form in prozorov . The main advantage of this model is that it identifies the effective barrier for magnetic relaxation as a single important parameter governing the process. Consider irreversible magnetization $`M=\left|M_mM_{eq}\right|`$, where $`M_m`$ is measured magnetization and $`M_{eq}`$ is the equilibrium magnetization (i.e., obtained upon field cooling process). The microscopic models of the system dynamics can be incorporated into a phenomenological equation prozorov :

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{M}{\tau _0}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{U(M)}{k_BT}\right]$$
(1)
where $`\tau _0`$ is the microscopic attempt time. The formulation of the problem in terms of the irreversible magnetization as the driving parameter is experimentally verified by studying magnetic relaxation in various regimes of inducing irreversible state (sweeping magnetic field, increasing magnetic field after zero-field cooling or decreasing field after field cooling). The result is that regardless how the irreversible state was created, its dynamics can be described by Eq.(1).

If the barrier $`U(M)`$ does not depend on irreversible magnetization, i.e., $`U(M)=U_0`$, the solution of Eq.(1) leads to a well-known Néel exponential relaxation:

$$M\left(t\right)=M_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t}{t_N}\right)$$
(2)
where $`t_N=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}\left(U_0/k_BT\right)`$ is the Néel relaxation time and $`M_0`$ is the initial value of the irreversible magnetization. Eq.(2) describes the dynamics of a uniform system of non-interacting superparamagnetic particles neel .

If, on the other hand, the barrier does depend on $`M`$, time - logarithmic magnetic relaxation is obtained blatter . For example, for a simplest linear dependence, $`U=U_0+U_c\left(1M/M_c\right)`$, Eq.(1) yields:

$$M\left(t\right)=M_c\left(1\frac{k_BT}{U_c}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{t}{t_0}\right)\right)$$
(3)
where $`t_0=\tau _Nk_BT/U_c`$ is the effective time constant, and $`M_c`$ is the threshold value for the irreversible magnetization above which the relaxation is of the Néel’s exponential single-particle decay. Above $`M_c`$, the barrier can still depend on $`M`$, but it would not lead to a collective dynamics and can be accounted for as a renormalization of the Stoner-Wohlfart single-particle barrier stoner ; garanin . Time-logarithmic relaxation described by Eq.(3) is routinely observed in assemblies of small ferromagnetic particles and, perhaps, is the most controversial issue in this research subject. For a long time, the contra-argument has been that a wide distribution of particle sizes and significant agglomeration cause distribution of the Néel relaxation times and the resulting slow dynamics could be described by stretched exponents, leading to quasi-logarithmic relaxation. The magnetization dependence of the effective barriers has also been analyzed in a single-particle approximation jonsson1 . The single-particle models, however, cannot reproduce logarithmic dynamics in a wide range of experimentally accessible times denisov .

In this work, a set of non-oriented frozen ferrofluids containing spherical $`\mathrm{Fe}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ nanoparticles of 8-10 nm in diameter, but different volume concentrations (interparticle distances) was studied by DC and AC magnetization techniques. Time-logarithmic relaxation was observed in a wide experimental time domain, covering seven orders of magnitude. This relaxation was observed at all temperatures and magnetic fields below the blocking line, $`T_B(H)`$, on a $`TH`$ phase diagram of the system. Within the framework of the adapted model prozorov , the important question is the dependence of the barrier for magnetic relaxation $`U(M)`$ on the irreversible magnetization, $`M`$. Typical slow collective dynamics of interacting particles leads to a nonlinear and even diverging barrier on approaching the equilibrium state. From a general point of view, such behavior is expected for a system evolving via many metastable states, so that the effective time, $`t_e=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}\left(U(M)/k_BT\right)`$, is increasing due to a decrease of a driving force (proportional to the irreversible magnetization, $`M`$). Various microscopic models predict different forms of $`U(M)`$ \- from strong algebraic divergence in a glassy phase eberbeck ; blatter ; yeshurun , a weak logarithmic divergence in the regime of self-organized criticality blatter , to a non-diverging tilted-washboard barrier blatter ; yeshurun . Therefore, the functional form of $`U(M)`$ is a key parameter, which links the macroscopically observable dynamics to the microscopic mechanism of magnetic irreversibility and relaxation in assemblies of ferromagnetic nanoparticles.

Colloids containing coated amorphous $`\mathrm{Fe}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ nanoparticles were prepared by a sonochemical method described in details elsewhere suslick ; shafi ; prozorovt . For all samples, the same amounts of oleic acid and decane were used and the only variable was the amount of $`\mathrm{Fe}(\mathrm{CO})_5`$ added. Oleic acid acting as a surfactant, prevented the particles from agglomeration. The size of obtained ferrimagnetic nanoparticles was about $`810`$ nm with a narrow size distribution. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging showed no systematic difference between particle sizes and shapes for colloids of different concentrations. Therefore, the only difference was the volume concentration of $`\mathrm{Fe}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ nanoparticles. Samples studied in this work were true colloids - similar samples did not precipitate even after about one year on the shelf, although the data presented here were collected on freshly obtained materials. AC and DC magnetic measurements were performed on a 1 T Quantum Design MPMS.

To verify the superparamagnetic nature of obtained colloids, the oriented frozen ferrofluid was measured. Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of remanent magnetization taken on warming from 5 K to room temperature. Initially, the sample was slowly cooled down in a 1 T external magnetic field from room temperature to 5 K. This allowed for a mechanical alignment of ferrimagnetic nanoparticles along the external field. At 5 K the external field was removed and remanent magnetization was measured upon slow warming. Only at the melting temperature of a frozen solution, the magnetization sharply dropped, indicating physical randomization of particles in the liquid phase. Each particle behaves as a single magnetic moment of about $`2000\mu _B`$ (Bohr magnetons) inducing significant long-range dipole fields and therefore frozen ferrofluids represent a nearly ideal superparamagnetic system. Hereinafter, all measurements are reported for zero-field cooled samples (random initial orientation of magnetic moments).

Figure 2 shows the development of magnetic irreversibility in frozen ferrofluids as the volume fraction increases. Sample 1 had $`C_v0.2\%`$ (volume percent), Sample 2 had $`C_v0.3\%`$ and Sample 3 had $`C_v0.5\%`$. A magnetic field of 500 Oe was applied after zero-field cooling to 5 K, whence the measurements were taken on warming (ZFC-W). Field cooling data were collected from 200 K (still below the melting point) without turning off the magnetic field (FC-C). At very small concentration ($`C_v<0.1\%`$, not shown) the behavior is superparamagnetic and fully reversible. Only a hint of developing irreversibility is observed in Sample 1 ($`C_v0.2\%`$). For larger volume fractions, pronounced blocking and associated hysteresis is observed (Samples 2 and 3 in Fig. 2). As expected, for larger concentrations, the blocking temperature is shifted to higher temperatures. Although the observed development of irreversibility vs. volume fraction is in satisfactory agreement with earlier reports dormann , we point out that volume fraction is not a good parameter, because it is coupled to the particle size and, therefore, materials with different interparticle distance can have the same $`C_v`$ and vice versa. The more relevant parameter is the interparticle distance, $`r`$, which in our case of 10 nm particles was $`r=50,45`$ and $`40`$ nm, for samples 1,2 and 3, respectively.

Figure 3 shows the amplitude of a linear AC response ($`H_{ac}=1`$ Oe) measured as a function of frequency at different temperatures. At all frequencies, the maximum value is reached at a blocking temperature ($`40`$ K in this case) as usually reported jonsson1 . Clearly, the frequency dependence is logarithmic and can be described by an equation similar to Eq.(3) with $`t=1/f`$. Therefore, Fig. 3 provides evidence for time-logarithmic relaxation in the interval between $`10^3`$ and $`10^1`$ seconds.

Figure 4 provides information on longer - times relaxation, probed by DC magnetization measurements. At all temperatures, the relaxation is evidently time-logarithmic from 1 to $`10^4`$ seconds. Combined with the result of Fig. 3, we obtain strong experimental evidence for a time-logarithmic magnetic relaxation in the irreversible regime of frozen ferrofluids in the time interval of $`10^310^4`$ seconds, which covers seven orders of magnitude. It is very difficult to explain such a result by applying models of distributed barriers and stretched exponents.

Using collected relaxation data and Eq.(1) it is possible to estimate the dependence of the effective barrier for magnetic relaxation on the irreversible magnetization. For this analysis, the construction, similar to that developed for type-II superconductors maley  can be adapted. A somewhat related scaling approach was suggested for ferrofluids in iglesias . Rearranging Eq.(1) yields:

$$U(M)=k_BT\left(C\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(M)}{dt}\right|\right)$$
(4)
where $`C=\mathrm{ln}\left(\tau _0\right)`$. The apparent problem is that the decay is logarithmic, so the logarithm of the logarithmic relaxation rate changes insignificantly during any reasonable acquisition time. However, if those relaxations are sampled at different temperatures as in Fig. 4, the wide range of relaxation rates, corresponding to different values of the irreversible magnetization can be accessed.

Figure 5 shows the corresponding experimental construction. Logarithmic derivatives of the individual $`M(t)`$ curves of Fig. 4 were plotted against corresponding values of the irreversible magnetization and each curve was adjusted to form a single master curve using $`C`$ as a free parameter. Required values of $`C`$ gradually increased in agreement with the expected decrease of $`\tau _0`$. The analytical functional form of the obtained curve was examined by fitting to various models, in particular to a general form of a collective barrier griessen ,

$$U\left(M\right)=\frac{U_c}{n}\left(1\left(\frac{M}{M_c}\right)^n\right)$$
(5)
which covers converging $`\left(n>0\right)`$, diverging $`\left(n<0\right)`$ as well as logarithmic $`\left(n=0\right)`$ barriers griessen . It was found that the best fit is obtained for a logarithmic barrier, $`U\left(M\right)=U_c\mathrm{ln}\left(M_c/M\right)`$, where $`U_c315`$ K and $`M_c0.006`$ emu. The logarithmic barrier means that the effective relaxation time, $`t_e`$ depends algebraically on the irreversible magnetization, $`t_e=\tau _N\mathrm{exp}\left(U\left(M\right)/k_BT\right)=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}U_0/k_BT\left(M_c/M\right)^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma =U_c/k_BT`$. The interpretation of the logarithmically diverging barrier is a subject of microscopic analysis and it is hoped that this result experimental will stimulate further work. In superconductors, a logarithmic barrier is obtained for two-dimensional interactions zeldov  as well as for magnetic relaxation in the regime of self-organized criticality blatter ; prozorog . The latter is an interesting possibility for the relaxation in frozen colloids, because self-organized criticality was already identified in random magnetic systems onody ; pazmandi ; templeton .

###### Acknowledgements.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the NSF/EPSCoR under Grant No. EPS-0296165, a grant from the University of South Carolina Research and Productive Scholarship Fund, and the donors of the American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund. The TEM study was carried out in the Center for Microanalysis of Materials (UIUC), which is partially supported by the DOE under Grant DEFGO2-91-ER45439.