text:
# Covariant fuzzy observables and coarse-graining

## 1. Introduction

The discovery of the proper mathematical formulation of the notion of a physical quantity (observable) in quantum mechanics as a normalized positive operator measure instead of the more traditional spectral measure (normalized projection measure) has provided, among many other advantages, a quantitative frame to investigate various formulations of the idea of an imprecise measurement of a physical quantity. In this paper we study the structure of the so-called fuzzy observables, and, especially, covariant fuzzy observables.

The notion of a fuzzy observable will be formulated as a smearing of a sharp observable (projection measure). The definition of a fuzzy observable and some of its interpretations and motivations are given in Section 2. In Section 3 we recall some results concerning covariant observables. In Section 4 we show that another related notion, the so-called coarse-graining, agrees with the notion of a fuzzy observable in the covariant case. The structure of covariant fuzzy observables is described. The norm-1-property of an observable (the possibility that with a suitable preparation its measurement outcome probabilities can be made arbitrarily close to one) as well as the regularity (the Boolean structure of its range) are operationally important properties. In Section 5 we study consequences of these properties for fuzzy observables. Since fuzzy observables are coarse-grainings of sharp observables, the question arises under what conditions the state distinction power of a fuzzy observable is the same as that of the corresponding sharp observable. This will be answered in Section 5.3. In the final Section 6 we shall illustrate some of the results of the paper in terms of familiar examples.

## 2. Fuzzy observables: definition and motivations

Let $``$ be a complex separable Hilbert space and $`()`$ the set of bounded operators on $``$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a nonempty set and $``$ a $`\sigma `$-algebra of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We say that a set function $`E:()`$ is an operator measure, if it is $`\sigma `$-additive with respect to the strong (or \[10, p. 318\] equivalently, weak) operator topology. The operator measure $`E`$ is positive if $`E(X)O`$ for all $`X`$, and normalized if $`E(\mathrm{\Omega })=I`$. If the normalized operator measure $`E`$ is projection valued, that is, $`E(X)^2=E(X)`$ for all $`X`$, it is a spectral measure. We call a positive normalized operator measure $`E:()`$ an observable and a spectral measure a sharp observable. For an observable $`E:()`$ and a unit vector $`\psi `$ we let $`p_\psi ^E`$ denote the probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined by

$$p_\psi ^E(X)=\psi |E(X)\psi ,X.$$

To distinguish sharp observables from general observables, we reserve the letter $`P`$ for a spectral measure. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a topological space, we denote by $`(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a selfadjoint operator $`A`$ in $``$ we let $`P^A:()()`$ denote its spectral measure. In such a situation we may also refer to $`A`$ as the sharp observable.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`P:()`$ be a sharp observable and consider a mapping $`\nu :\mathrm{\Omega }\times [0,1]`$, denoted also by $`(\omega ,X)\nu _\omega (X)`$, with the following properties:

* for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\nu _\omega `$ is a probability measure;
* for every $`X`$, the mapping $`\omega \nu _\omega (X)`$ is measurable.

The integral

$$E(X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\nu _\omega (X)\text{d}P(\omega ),X$$
(1)
defines by the dominated convergence theorem a positive normalized operator measure. We call it a *fuzzy observable* with respect to $`P`$, and we say that the mapping $`\nu `$ is a *confidence measure*.

There are at least two interpretations for the operator measure $`E`$ defined in Equation (1), depending on whether one wants to think of fuzziness as belonging to points or to events. We take a brief look at these two viewpoints.

Since realistic measurements always have some unsharpness or imprecision, one may think that the points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are to be replaced by probability distributions. We can write the sharp observable $`P`$ in the form

$$P(X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\delta _\omega (X)\text{d}P(\omega ),$$
(2)
where $`\delta _\omega `$ is the Dirac measure at a point $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Comparing Equations (1) and (2), we notice that the fuzzy observable $`E`$ is formed by replacing at every point $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ the point measure $`\delta _\omega `$ by the probability measure $`\nu _\omega `$. Thus unsharpness related to a point $`\omega `$ is quantified by a probability measure $`\nu _\omega `$. This is the viewpoint e.g. in ,  and .

Another interpretation arises from Zadeh’s notion of a fuzzy set and a fuzzy event, , . We recall that a fuzzy set in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a mapping $`\stackrel{~}{X}:\mathrm{\Omega }[0,1]`$, and its values $`\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )`$ are called the membership degrees of the points $`\omega `$. Ordinary sets are identified with their characteristic functions. Let $`\mu `$ be a probability measure on $``$ . Following Zadeh, a fuzzy set is called a fuzzy event if the corresponding function is measurable. The probability $`\mu (\stackrel{~}{X})`$ of a fuzzy event $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is defined as the integral $`_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )\text{d}\mu (\omega )`$. Following this way of thought, it is natural to define $`P(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ as the operator

$$P(\stackrel{~}{X})=_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )\text{d}P(\omega ).$$

Let now $`\nu `$ be a confidence measure. For a fixed set $`X`$ the mapping $`\omega \nu _\omega (X)`$ is a fuzzy event. Thus $`\nu `$ can be seen as a function which maps measurable sets to fuzzy events. If $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is the fuzzy event $`\omega \nu _\omega (X)`$, Equation (1) can be written as

$$E(X)=P(\stackrel{~}{X}).$$

We may thus conclude that in any vector state $`\psi ,\psi =1,`$ the fuzzy observable $`E`$ gives for an event $`X`$ the same probability as the sharp observable $`P`$ gives for a fuzzy event $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

To expand on the physical motivation of the present study, we recall a typical situation of measurement theory, described by the so-called standard measurement model , . We denote by $``$ the Hilbert space of the system to be measured and by $`𝒦`$ the Hilbert space of the measurement apparatus. The aim is to measure a sharp observable $`A`$ of the object system (a selfadjoint operator on $``$) using a measurement interaction of the form

$$U=e^{i\lambda AB},$$

where $`B`$ is a sharp observable of the apparatus (a selfadjoint operator on $`𝒦`$) and $`\lambda `$ a coupling constant. Let $`\varphi 𝒦`$ be an initial vector state of the apparatus and denote $`\varphi _{\lambda a}=e^{i\lambda aB}\varphi `$ for all $`a`$. Let $`Z`$ be the sharp pointer observable (selfadjoint operator on $`𝒦`$) being applied. The probability reproducibility condition

$$\phi |E(X)\phi =U(\phi \varphi )|IP^Z(X)U(\phi \varphi ),$$
(3)
required to hold for all vector states $`\phi `$ and $`X()`$, defines the actually measured observable $`E:()()`$ of the object system, and a direct computation shows that

$$E(X)=_{}\varphi _{\lambda a}|P^Z(X)\varphi _{\lambda a}\text{d}P^A(a).$$
(4)
For a fixed $`a`$, the mapping $`X\varphi _{\lambda a}|P^Z(X)\varphi _{\lambda a}`$ is a probability measure and for a fixed $`X`$, the mapping $`a\varphi _{\lambda a}|P^Z(X)\varphi _{\lambda a}`$ is continuous. Thus, the mapping $`(a,X)\varphi _{\lambda a}|P^Z(X)\varphi _{\lambda a}`$ is a confidence measure. One concludes that the standard measurement model $`𝒦,\varphi ,U,Z`$ for a sharp observable $`A`$ determines a fuzzy observable with respect to $`A`$.

## 3. Covariant fuzzy observables

The behavior of an observable under appropriate transformations, like space-time transformations, determines to a large extent the structure of an observable. In such a relativistic approach, developed systematically by George W. Mackey, one takes covariance as a defining property of an observable. In many relevant cases (e.g. position, momentum, spin), although not in some (e.g. phase, time), one has a unique covariant sharp observable, which is also called the corresponding canonical observable. Our investigation in the rest of this paper will concentrate on those covariant observables which are fuzzy observables with respect to a canonical observable. In this section we introduce further notation and recall some results, which, if not otherwise stated, can be found e.g. in  and .

Let $`G`$ be a locally compact topological group, which is Hausdorff and satisfies the second axiom of countability. Then $`G`$ is also metrizable and there exists a left invariant metric which induces its topology (see e.g. ). We fix a closed normal (proper) subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$, and from now on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the quotient group $`G/H`$. The groups $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are locally compact, Hausdorff and second countable topological spaces in a natural way. Moreover, the canonical projection

$$\pi :G\mathrm{\Omega },ggH$$

is a continuous and open homomorphism. We fix (arbitrary) left invariant Haar measures of $`G,H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and denote them by $`\mu _G,\mu _H`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`d_G,d_H`$, and $`d_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denote left invariant metrics. We denote by $`(g,\omega )g\omega `$ the action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`gG,\omega \mathrm{\Omega },X\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we write $`gX=\{gx|xX\}`$ and $`\omega X=\{\omega x|xX\}`$.

###### Definition 2.

Let $`U`$ be a strongly continuous unitary representation of $`G`$ in a Hilbert space $``$. We say that the observable $`E:(\mathrm{\Omega })()`$ is *$`G`$-covariant* with respect to $`U`$ if

$$U(g)E(X)U(g)^{}=E(gX)$$
(5)
for all $`gG`$, $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

In the sequel we will need the following result concerning the structure of $`G`$-covariant observables. Let $`E`$ be a $`G`$-covariant observable. Then for any $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$,

$$E(X)=O\text{ if and only if }\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X)=0.$$
(6)
For a proof see \[14, Prop. 8\].

We will assume that there exists a $`G`$-covariant sharp observable $`P:(\mathrm{\Omega })()`$ with respect to $`U`$. By the Imprimitivity Theorem of Mackey  this is the case if and only if $`U`$ is equivalent to a representation induced from some representation of the subgroup $`H`$. Moreover, the pair $`(U,P)`$ is equivalent to the canonical system of imprimitivity. This means that there is a separable Hilbert space $`𝒦`$ such that we may (and always will) assume $``$ to be the space $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mu _\mathrm{\Omega },𝒦)`$ of $`𝒦`$-valued weakly measurable square-integrable functions and $`P(X)\psi =\chi _X\psi `$ for all $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\psi `$ (for a convenient summary see e.g. ). Throughout this article $`(U,P)`$ is a fixed canonical system of imprimitivity, if not otherwise stated. If $`E`$ is a $`G`$-covariant observable and fuzzy with respect to $`P`$, we call $`E`$ a covariant fuzzy observable, for short.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`\rho :(\mathrm{\Omega })[0,1]`$ be a probability measure. The mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:\mathrm{\Omega }\times (\mathrm{\Omega })[0,1]`$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\omega (X)=\rho (\omega ^1X)`$ is a confidence measure.

###### Proof.

The mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ clearly satisfies the condition (i) in Definition 1 so we concentrate on the condition (ii). For any bounded Borel function $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }`$, let us define the function $`F_f:\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by

$$F_f(\omega )=f(\omega \eta )\text{d}\rho (\eta ).$$

In this notation $`\rho (\omega ^1X)=F_{\chi _X}(\omega )`$ so we have to show that the collection $`=\{X(\mathrm{\Omega })|F_{\chi _X}\text{ is measurable}\}`$ coincides with $`(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

First, if $`f`$ belongs to the set $`C_c(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of continuous functions with compact support, then $`f`$ is left uniformly continuous and $`F_f`$ is continuous. In particular, $`F_f`$ is measurable.

Let us then consider the case where $`f=\chi _A`$ for some open set $`A\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is locally compact and second countable, the set $`A`$ is $`\sigma `$-compact. Therefore, we may choose an increasing sequence $`(K_n)`$ of compact sets such that $`K_nA`$ and $`_nK_n=A`$. Using Urysohn’s Lemma we find for each $`n`$ a function $`f_nC_c(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`0f_n(\omega )1`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`f_n(\omega )=1`$ for all $`\omega K_n`$ and $`f_n(\omega )=0`$ for all $`\omega A`$. The function $`\chi _A`$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence $`(f_n)`$. By the dominated convergence theorem

$`F_{\chi _A}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \chi _A(\omega \eta )\text{d}\rho (\eta )}={\displaystyle \underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}f_n(\omega \eta )\text{d}\rho (\eta )}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle f_n(\omega \eta )\text{d}\rho (\eta )}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}F_{f_n}(\omega ),`$
and so $`F_{\chi _A}`$ is measurable. Thus any open set belongs to $``$.

Denote by $`𝒜`$ the collection of those sets $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which $`\chi _X`$ is of the form $`_{i=1}^nϵ_i\chi _{A_i}`$ for some open sets $`A_i`$ and numbers $`ϵ_i=\pm 1`$. Clearly, $`𝒜`$ is closed under complements and intersections and hence, it is an algebra. As $`F_{_{i=1}^nϵ_i\chi _{A_i}}=_{i=1}^nϵ_iF_{\chi _{A_i}}`$ and each $`F_{\chi _{A_i}}`$ is measurable, $`𝒜`$.

An argument analogous to (3) shows that $``$ is a monotone class. By the monotone class lemma \[12, p. 66\] the monotone class $`_0`$ generated by $`𝒜`$ coincides with the $`\sigma `$-algebra $`_0`$ generated by $`𝒜`$. Since $`_0=(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`_0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ we have $`=(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. ∎

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`\rho :(\mathrm{\Omega })[0,1]`$ be a probability measure. Then the observable $`E_\rho `$ defined by

$$E_\rho (X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\omega ^1X)\text{d}P(\omega ),X(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(8)
is a covariant fuzzy observable. Moreover, for any unit vector $`\psi `$ the probability measure $`p_\psi ^{E_\rho }`$ takes the form

$$p_\psi ^{E_\rho }=p_\psi ^P\rho ,$$
(9)
where $`p_\psi ^P\rho `$ is the convolution of the measures $`p_\psi ^P`$ and $`\rho `$.

###### Proof.

It follows directly from Lemma 1 that $`E_\rho `$ is a fuzzy observable with respect to $`P`$. Let $`gG`$, $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and $`\psi `$. Since $`P`$ is $`G`$-covariant, we have

$`\psi |U(g)E_\rho (X)U(g)^{}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\rho (\omega ^1X)\text{d}p_{U^{}(g)\psi }^P(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\rho ((g^1\omega )^1X)\text{d}p_\psi ^P(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\rho (\omega ^1(gX))\text{d}p_\psi ^P(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\psi |E_\rho (gX)\psi .`$
Thus $`E`$ is $`G`$-covariant.

The last claim follows from the fact that for any $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$,

$$p_\psi ^{E_\rho }(X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\omega ^1X)\text{d}p_\psi ^P(\omega )=_\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Omega }\chi _X(\omega \eta )\text{d}\rho (\eta )\text{d}p_\psi ^P(\omega ).$$

The Dirac measure $`\delta _\omega `$ at a point $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ yields a fuzzy observable $`E_{\delta _\omega }`$, which is the translated spectral measure

$$XP(X\omega ^1),$$

also denoted by $`P_\omega `$. This differ from the canonical spectral measure $`P`$ only by ’the choice of the origin’. Equation (8) can be written in the form

$$E_\rho (X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }P(X\omega ^1)\text{d}\rho (\omega )=_\mathrm{\Omega }P_\omega (X)\text{d}\rho (\omega ).$$
(10)
Thus the operators $`E_\rho (X)`$ are weighted means of the translated projections $`P_\omega (X),\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Example 1.

Let $`\rho `$ be a probability measure $`\rho `$ with a finite support $`\text{supp }(\rho )=\{\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _n\}`$ and $`\rho (\{\omega _i\})=\lambda _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Equation (10) becomes

$$E_\rho (X)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _iP_{\omega _i}(X).$$
(11)
As $`_{i=1}^n\lambda _i=1`$, we see that the fuzzy observable $`E_\rho `$ is a convex combination of the sharp observables $`P_{\omega _1},\mathrm{},P_{\omega _n}`$. Therefore, we may think of $`E_\rho `$ as a mixture of translated sharp observables.

###### Example 2.

Let $`\rho `$ be a probability measure and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ the corresponding confidence measure (defined in Lemma 1). Assume that $`\rho `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`f`$ be the corresponding Radon-Nikodým derivative. Define the function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}`$ by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}(\omega )=f(\omega ^1)`$. For any set $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the confidence measure $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ defines a fuzzy event $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, as in Section 2. The fuzzy event $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ can be written simply as a convolution of the characteristic function $`\chi _X`$ and the function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}`$, since

$`\stackrel{~}{X}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\omega (X)=\rho (\omega ^1X)={\displaystyle \chi _{\omega ^1X}(\eta )f(\eta )\text{d}\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\chi _X\stackrel{ˇ}{f}\right)(\omega ).`$
## 4. Coarse-graining

Let $`𝒯()`$ be the set of all trace-class operators on $``$ and $`M(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the set of all complex Radon measures on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. An observable $`E:(\mathrm{\Omega })()`$ defines a linear mapping

$$V_E:𝒯()M(\mathrm{\Omega }),V_E(T)(X)=\mathrm{tr}[TE(X)].$$
(12)
In particular, if $`T`$ is a state, i.e. a positive trace one operator, then $`V_E(T)`$ is a probability measure. Moreover, if $`T`$ is a vector state $`T=|\psi \psi |`$, then $`V_E(T)=p_\psi ^E`$. The mapping $`V_E`$ characterizes the observable $`E`$ completely in the sense that $`V_E=V_E^{}`$ implies $`E=E^{}`$.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ be observables from $`(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to $`()`$ and $`V_{E_1},V_{E_2}`$ the corresponding mappings. We say that the observable $`E_2`$ is *coarser* than $`E_1`$, if there exists a linear map $`W:M(\mathrm{\Omega })M(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, such that

* for any probability measure $`mM(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`W(m)`$ is a probability measure;
* $`V_{E_2}`$ is the composite mapping of $`V_{E_1}`$ and $`W`$, that is, $`V_{E_2}=WV_{E_1}`$.

If $`E_2`$ is coarser than $`E_1`$ we also say that $`E_2`$ is a *coarse-graining* of $`E_1`$.

Using the Jordan decomposition of a measure one infers from (i) that $`W`$ is a bounded linear map.

If $`E_2`$ is a coarse-graining of $`E_1`$, for any two states $`S,T𝒯()_1^+`$ the following implication holds:

$$V_{E_1}(S)=V_{E_1}(T)V_{E_2}(S)=V_{E_2}(T).$$
(13)
This means that the state distinction power of $`E_2`$ does not exceed that of $`E_1`$.

###### Example 3.

Fuzzy observables are coarser than the corresponding sharp observable. Indeed, any confidence measure $`\nu :\mathrm{\Omega }\times (\mathrm{\Omega })[0,1]`$ induces a linear mapping

$$W_\nu :M(\mathrm{\Omega })M(\mathrm{\Omega }),W_\nu (m)(X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\nu _\omega (X)\text{d}m(\omega ).$$

The observable $`E`$ corresponding to the map $`W_\nu V_P`$ is the fuzzy observable given by equation (1).

If $`E`$ is a $`G`$-covariant observable, equation (6) implies that for any $`T𝒯()`$, the measure $`V_E(T)`$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus, we may identify $`V_E(T)`$ with its Radon-Nikodým derivative with respect to $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and hence the mapping $`V_E`$ with the corresponding mapping from $`𝒯()`$ to $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. For our subsequent needs we state and give a proof of the following known result.

###### Lemma 2.

The mapping $`V_P:𝒯()L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ corresponding to the canonical observable $`P`$ is surjective.

###### Proof.

Let $`f`$ be a function in $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and write it as $`f=f_1f_2+i(f_3f_4)`$, where $`f_n,n=1,2,3,4,`$ are nonnegative functions and belong to $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Fix a unit vector $`\phi 𝒦`$ and for each $`n=1,2,3,4`$ denote $`\psi _n(\omega )=\sqrt{f_n(\omega )}\phi `$. Then $`\psi _n`$ belongs to $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mu _\mathrm{\Omega },𝒦)`$ and $`V_P(|\psi _n\psi _n|)=f_n`$. The operator

$$T=|\psi _1\psi _1||\psi _2\psi _2|+i|\psi _3\psi _3|i|\psi _4\psi _4|$$

is a trace-class operator and $`V_P(T)=f`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`E`$ be a $`G`$-covariant observable. If $`E`$ is coarser than $`P`$, then $`E=E_\rho `$ for some probability measure $`\rho :(\mathrm{\Omega })[0,1]`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`E`$ is coarser than $`P`$. By definition there exists a linear map $`W:L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that

$$V_E=WV_P.$$
(14)
For any $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`fL^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, we define $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi f)(\omega )=f(\xi \omega )`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi :L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a linear mapping. We will show that for all $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi W=W\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi .$$
(15)
Together with a result of Wendel \[23, Theorem 1\] as formulated in \[16, p. 376\] this then implies that $`W`$ is of the form $`W(f)=f\rho `$ for some probability measure $`\rho `$. By equation (9) this means that $`E=E_\rho `$.

To prove (15), fix $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and choose $`gG`$ such that $`\pi (g)=\xi `$. Since $`E`$ is covariant, we get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi V_E(T)=V_E(U(g)^{}TU(g))$$
(16)
for all $`T𝒯()`$. The same is true for $`V_P`$, that is,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi V_P(T)=V_P(U(g)^{}TU(g)).$$
(17)
Comparing equations (14), (16) and (17), we get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi WV_P=W\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi V_P.$$
(18)
As the mapping $`V_P`$ is surjective, equation (15) follows from (18). ∎

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`E`$ be a $`G`$-covariant observable. The following are equivalent:

* $`E`$ is a fuzzy observable with respect to $`P`$;
* $`E`$ is coarser than $`P`$;
* There is a probability measure $`\rho `$ such that $`E=E_\rho `$.

###### Proof.

In Example 3 it was shown that (i) implies (ii). By Proposition 2 (ii) implies (iii). That (iii) implies (i) was shown in Proposition 1. ∎

## 5. Properties of covariant fuzzy observables

In this section we study the norm-1-property as well as the regularity of a covariant fuzzy observable and we find a necessary and sufficient condition for a fuzzy observable to be informationally equivalent to its sharp counterpart.

### 5.1. The norm-1-property

Sharp observables $`P`$, i.e. spectral measures, have the property that the norm of any $`P(X)O`$ is one. Spectral measures are not the only observables having this property, called the norm-1-property in . Some examples are given in . If an observable $`E`$ has the norm-1-property, then for each $`E(X)O`$ there is a sequence of vector states $`(\phi _n)`$ such that $`lim_n\mathrm{}p_{\phi _n}^E(X)=1`$. The following proposition shows that among the covariant fuzzy observables only the translated spectral measures have the norm-1-property.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`E`$ be a $`G`$-covariant observable which is fuzzy with respect to $`P`$. Then $`E`$ has the norm-1-property if and only if $`E=P_\omega `$ for some $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

If $`E`$ is a spectral measure, then it has the norm-1-property. Assume now that $`\rho `$ is a probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`E`$ is defined by equation (8). Then $`E=P_\omega `$ if and only if $`\rho =\delta _\omega `$. Therefore it is enough to show that if $`E`$ has the norm-1-property, then $`\text{supp }(\rho )`$ is a one point set.

For any $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$,

$$E(X)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (\omega ^1X)\text{d}P(\omega )P(X)\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\rho (\omega ^1X)\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\rho (\omega X).$$

Thus $`E`$ cannot have the norm-1-property if $`sup_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}\rho (\omega X)<1`$ for some $`X(\mathrm{\Omega }),\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X)>0`$. (By equation (6), $`E(X)O`$ if and only if $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X)0`$.)

Assume now that there are at least two points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`\text{supp }(\rho )`$ and denote $`r=d_\mathrm{\Omega }(x,y)`$. Then the sets $`B(x;\frac{r}{5})`$ and $`B(y;\frac{r}{5})`$ are disjoint and have positive $`\rho `$-measure. Denote $`m=\mathrm{min}\{\rho (B(x;\frac{r}{5})),\rho (B(y;\frac{r}{5}))\}`$. Because the metric $`d_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is left invariant, we have $`\omega B(x;\frac{r}{5})=B(\omega x;\frac{r}{5})`$ for any $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Moreover, for any $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have $`B(\omega x;\frac{r}{5})B(x;\frac{r}{5})=\mathrm{}`$ or $`B(\omega x;\frac{r}{5})B(y;\frac{r}{5})=\mathrm{}`$. This implies that $`\rho (\omega B(x;\frac{r}{5}))1m`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ so that $`sup_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}\rho (\omega B(x;\frac{r}{5}))<1`$. ∎

### 5.2. Regularity

An observable $`E`$ is called regular, if for each $`OE(X)I`$, the spectrum of $`E(X)`$ extends both below and above $`\frac{1}{2}`$. For such an observable, for each (nontrivial) $`E(X)`$ there are vector states $`\phi `$ such that $`p_\phi ^E(X)>1/2`$ and $`p_\phi ^E(X^{})<1/2`$, a property which resembles the fact that for each (nontrivial) projection $`P(X)`$ there is a $`\phi `$ such that $`p_\phi ^P(X)=1`$ and $`p_\phi ^P(X^{})=0`$. If an observable $`E`$ is regular, then its range $`\{E(X)|X\}`$ is a Boolean system with respect to the natural order and complement of the set of effects restricted to the range .

Clearly, an observable having the norm-1-property is also regular. Next we give an example of covariant fuzzy observable which is regular and which is not a spectral measure.

###### Example 4.

Let $`\omega _1,\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be distinct points. Let $`E`$ be a proper convex combination of the translated spectral measures $`P_{\omega _1}`$ and $`P_{\omega _2}`$, that is,

$$E(X)=tP_{\omega _1}(X)+(1t)P_{\omega _2}(X),X(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

for some $`t(\frac{1}{2},1)`$. For any $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the projections $`P_{\omega _1}(X)`$ and $`P_{\omega _2}(X)`$ commute, so that also their product $`Q:=P_{\omega _1}(X)P_{\omega _2}(X)`$ is projection. The differences $`P_{\omega _1}(X)Q`$ and $`P_{\omega _1}(X)Q`$ are mutually orthogonal projections, and the spectral decomposition of the effect $`E(X)`$ is

$$E(X)=t(P_{\omega _1}(X)Q)+(1t)(P_{\omega _2}(X)Q)+Q.$$

Assume that the spectrum of $`E(X)`$ lies under $`\frac{1}{2}`$. This means that $`P_{\omega _1}(X)Q=Q=O`$, implying also that $`P_{\omega _1}(X)=O`$ and by equation (6), $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X\omega _1^1)=0`$. In the right translations the sets of $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measure zero remain $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measure zero. Hence, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X\omega _2^1)=0`$, and by equation (6), $`P_{\omega _2}(X)=O`$. Therefore, the spectrum of any $`E(X)O`$ extends above $`\frac{1}{2}`$. If $`OE(X)I`$, then also the complement effect $`E(X^{})=IE(X)`$ has $`t`$ or $`1`$ in spectrum. This implies that either $`0`$ or $`1t`$ belongs in the spectrum of $`E(X)`$, showing that the observable $`E`$ is regular.

Even though there are regular fuzzy observables, regularity is a surprisingly strong condition. Proposition 4 shows that many typical fuzzy observables (see Section 6.2) are not regular.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be non-discrete and $`\rho :(\mathrm{\Omega })[0,1]`$ a probability measure. If $`\rho `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Haar measure $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then the fuzzy observable $`E_\rho `$ is not regular.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Proposition 3, we get the inequality

$$E_\rho (X)\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\rho (\omega X)$$
(19)
for any $`X(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. For every $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a $`\delta _ϵ>0`$ such that $`\rho (\omega X)<ϵ`$ whenever $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega X)<\delta _ϵ`$ (see \[12, Theorem 3.5\]). Hence, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X)<\delta _ϵ`$ implies that $`\rho (\omega X)<ϵ`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not discrete, the Haar measure $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has arbitrarily small positive values. Thus we can choose $`X_1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`0<\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(X_1)<\delta _{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Now $`\rho (\omega X)<\frac{1}{2}`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and this together with equation (19) gives $`E_\rho (X_1)<\frac{1}{2}`$. Moreover, $`E_\rho (X_1)O`$ by equation (6).

### 5.3. Informational equivalence

We shall next investigate the state distinction power of fuzzy observables. In general, two observables $`E_1,E_2`$ are called *informationally equivalent* if for any two states $`S,T𝒯()_1^+`$,

$$V_{E_1}(S)=V_{E_1}(T)V_{E_2}(S)=V_{E_2}(T).$$

This means that informationally equivalent observables have the same ability to distinguish between different states. Clearly, $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are informationally equivalent if and only if for any two unit vectors $`\phi ,\psi `$ we have

$$p_\phi ^{E_1}=p_\psi ^{E_1}p_\phi ^{E_2}=p_\psi ^{E_2}.$$

Since a fuzzy observable is a coarse-graining of a sharp observable, its ability to distinguish states does not exceed that of the sharp observable. However, a fuzzy observable can be informationally equivalent to the underlying sharp one. Proposition 5 deals with this matter.

Let the group $`\mathrm{\Omega }=G/H`$ be Abelian. If $`\rho `$ is a probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, its Fourier-Stieltjes transform $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the bounded continuous function on the dual group $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, defined by

$$\widehat{\rho }(\xi )=_\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\omega ,\xi }\text{d}\rho (\omega )=_\mathrm{\Omega }\omega ,\xi ^1\text{d}\rho (\omega ),$$

where $`\omega ,\xi =\xi (\omega )`$ is the value of the character $`\xi `$ at the point $`\omega `$.

###### Proposition 5.

The observables $`P`$ and $`E_\rho `$ are informationally equivalent if and only if $`\text{supp }(\widehat{\rho })=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that the latter condition is fulfilled. Let $`\phi ,\psi `$ be two unit vectors such that $`p_\phi ^{E_\rho }=p_\psi ^{E_\rho }`$. Using equation (9) and taking Fourier-Stieltjes transforms we get $`\widehat{p_\phi ^P}(\xi )\widehat{\rho }(\xi )=\widehat{p_\psi ^P}(\xi )\widehat{\rho }(\xi )`$ for all $`\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. This implies that $`\widehat{p_\phi ^P}(\xi )=\widehat{p_\psi ^P}(\xi )`$ in a dense set. Since the functions $`\widehat{p_\phi }`$ and $`\widehat{p_\psi ^P}`$ are continuous, it follows that $`\widehat{p_\phi ^P}=\widehat{p_\psi ^P}`$, and so $`p_\phi ^P=p_\psi ^P`$. Thus the observables $`P`$ and $`E_\rho `$ are informationally equivalent.

Assume now that $`\text{supp }(\widehat{\rho })\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. We have to show that there are unit vectors $`\psi ,\phi L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mu _\mathrm{\Omega },𝒦)`$ such that $`p_\psi ^Pp_\phi ^P`$ but $`p_\psi ^{E_\rho }=p_\psi ^{E_\rho }`$. Let us denote by $`U`$ the complement of $`\text{supp }(\widehat{\rho })`$. Fix $`\widehat{\omega }\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ such that $`\widehat{\omega }^1`$ belongs to $`U`$. Then the set $`\widehat{\omega }U`$ is an open neighborhood of the neutral element $`e`$ and there is a symmetric open set $`V`$ such that $`eV`$ and $`VV\widehat{\omega }U`$. According to Urysohn’s lemma there exists a continuous function $`f:\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}[0,1],f0,`$ having compact support such that $`\text{supp }(f)V`$. The convolution $`ff^{}`$ is a positive definite continuous function with compact support contained in $`\widehat{\omega }U`$. By the Fourier inversion theorem there is a positive function $`F^{}L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`\widehat{F^{}}=ff^{}`$. The product $`F:=\widehat{\omega }^1F^{}`$ is in $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and

$$\widehat{F}(\xi )=(ff^{})(\widehat{\omega }\xi ).$$

It follows that the support of $`\widehat{F}`$ is contained in $`U`$ and therefore $`\widehat{\rho }\widehat{F}=0`$. This means that

$$\rho F=0.$$
(20)
We now write $`F=F_1F_2+iF_3iF_4`$, where the $`F_j,j=1,2,3,4,`$ are nonnegative functions and belong to $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Since $`F0`$, either $`F_1F_2`$ or $`F_3F_4`$. We consider the case $`F_1F_2`$, the other one being similar.

Equation (20) implies that

$$\rho F_1=\rho F_2.$$
(21)
As $`\rho F_1_1=F_1_1`$ and similarly $`\rho F_2_1=F_2_1`$, we have $`F_1_1=F_2_1`$. Therefore we may normalize $`F_1_1=F_2_1=1`$ keeping equation (21) valid. Fix a unit vector $`\vartheta 𝒦`$ and denote $`\psi (\omega )=\sqrt{F_1(\omega )}\vartheta `$ and $`\phi (\omega )=\sqrt{F_2(\omega )}\vartheta `$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`\psi ,\phi L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mu _\mathrm{\Omega },𝒦)`$ are states, $`p_\psi ^Pp_\phi ^P`$ and $`p_\psi ^{E_\rho }=p_\psi ^{E_\rho }`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.

In  the Euclidean covariant localization observables were studied. If $`E`$ is a Euclidean covariant localization observable, then it is in particular covariant under translations. For a translationally covariant fuzzy observable Proposition 5 is applicable. Our result therefore shows that in \[2, Theorem 2\] one needs the additional assumption that the Fourier-Stieltjes transform of the probability measure in question has all of $`^3`$ as its support. The same observation applies e.g. to \[6, p. 124\] where  is quoted.

## 6. Examples

In this section we illustrate the concepts and results of the previous sections by the Stern-Gerlach experiment and by some localization observables.

### 6.1. The Stern-Gerlach experiment

In the most simplified, though prototypical textbook description of a Stern-Gerlach experiment a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ atom prepared in a vector state $`\varphi _{\mathrm{orbit}}\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}`$ is directed (say, horizontally) to a (say, vertical) Stern-Gerlach magnetic field. Writing $`\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}=c_{}\psi _{}+c_{}\psi _{}`$, the action of the magnet on the atom is described by a unitary transformation coupling its spin and spatial degrees of freedom:

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{orbit}}\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}c_{}\varphi _{}\psi _{}+c_{}\varphi _{}\psi _{}.$$

The deflected atom hits a screen producing a spot on it. The counting of the spots (that is, the collecting of the measurement statistics of up and down deflected atoms) can be modelled by projection operators $`P_{}`$ and $`P_{}`$ representing the localization of the atom in the upper or lower half planes of the screen. The relevant measurement outcome probabilities are then

$`p_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|c_{}|^2\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}+|c_{}|^2\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{},`$
$`p_{}`$ $`=`$ $`|c_{}|^2\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}+|c_{}|^2\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}.`$
When these probabilities are expressed in terms of a two-valued spin observable $`E`$ and the incoming spin state $`\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}`$, that is, $`\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}|E_{}\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}:=p_{}`$ and $`\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}|E_{}\psi _{\mathrm{spin}}:=p_{}`$, the measured spin observable $`E`$ has the form

$`E_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}P[\psi _{}]+\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}P[\psi _{}],`$
$`E_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}P[\psi _{}]+\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}P[\psi _{}].`$
If $`\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}=\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}=1`$ and $`\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}=\varphi _{}|P_{}\varphi _{}=0`$, we get the sharp spin observable $`s_{}`$ with the spectral projections $`E_{}=P[\psi _{}]`$ and $`E_{}=P[\psi _{}]`$. In general, the measured spin observable $`E`$ is a fuzzy observable with respect to $`s_{}`$. Apart from the trivial observable $`E_{}=E_{}=\frac{1}{2}I`$, the measured fuzzy spin observables are informationally equivalent to the sharp one, $`s_{}`$. Being a two-valued observable $`E`$ is regular. The norms of $`E_{}`$ and $`E_{}`$ are their larger eigenvalues which are equal to one only when these effects are the spin projections. (A more realistic account of a Stern-Gerlach experiment as a spin measurement experiment can be read, for instance, in , but the basic picture is essentially the same.)

### 6.2. Localization on $``$

The usual position observable on $``$ is the spectral measure $`P:()(L^2())`$, $`P(X)\psi =\chi _X\psi `$. It is covariant under the regular representation $`U:𝒰()`$, $`[U(x)\psi ](y)=\psi (yx)`$. The representation $`U`$ is induced from the trivial representation of the trivial subgroup $`\{0\}`$. All $``$-covariant localization observables are characterized explicitly in . We emphasize that there exist also other covariant position observables than the sharp and fuzzy localization observables. Even non-commutative covariant localization observables exist.

Davies  calls an observable $`E_f:()(L^2())`$, $`E_f(X)=(f\chi _X)(P)`$, where $`f`$ is a probability density function, an approximate position observable. This is a covariant fuzzy observable, the probability measure being $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}\text{d}\mu `$, where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}(x)=f(x)`$ (see Example 2). According to Proposition 5 the approximate position observable $`E_f`$ is informationally equivalent to the sharp position observable $`P`$ if and only if $`\text{supp }(\widehat{f})=`$. For example, if $`f`$ is a Gaussian function, then the Fourier transform of $`f`$ is also Gaussian and $`E_f`$ is informationally equivalent to $`P`$. Also the functions $`\frac{1}{2a}\chi _{[a,a]},a>0,`$ yield approximate position observables that are informationally equivalent to $`P`$. An example of an approximate position observable which is not informationally equivalent to $`P`$, is obtained if one takes $`f(x)=\mathrm{sin}^2(2\pi x)/2\pi ^2x^2`$. In this case $`\widehat{f}(\xi )=\mathrm{max}(1\frac{1}{2}|\xi |,0)`$ and $`\text{supp }(\widehat{f})=[2,2]`$.

### 6.3. Localization on $`𝕋`$

Let us denote by $`𝕋`$ the set of all complex numbers modulus one. It is a compact Abelian group and the Haar measure $`\mu =\mu _𝕋`$ of $`𝕋`$ is just the normalized and translated Lebesgue measure. By a $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observable we mean an observable $`E:(𝕋)(L^2(𝕋))`$ satisfying the covariance condition

$$U(a)E(X)U(a)^{}=E(aX),$$

where $`[U(a)\psi ](z)=\psi (a^1z)`$.

The family $`\{e_k\}_k`$ of functions

$$e_k:𝕋,e_k(a)=a^k,$$

is an orthonormal basis for $`L^2(𝕋)`$. Theorem 1 of  shows that any $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observable $`E`$ has the form

$$E(X)=\underset{n,m}{}c_{n,m}_Xz^{mn}\text{d}\mu (z)|e_ne_m|,X(𝕋),$$
(22)
where the numbers $`c_{n,m}`$ satisfy the following two conditions:

* $`c_{n,n}=1`$ for all $`n`$;
* $`_{n,m=k}^kc_{n,m}|e_ne_m|O`$ for all $`k`$.

Note that the canonical spectral measure $`P`$ corresponds to the matrix $`(c_{n,m})`$, where $`c_{n,m}=1`$ for all $`n,m`$.

This simple structure of $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observables gives us a possibility to investigate further the fuzzy observables on $`𝕋`$. We say that the observables $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ *commute* if $`E_1(X)E_2(Y)=E_2(Y)E_1(X)`$ for all $`X,Y(𝕋)`$. An observable $`E`$ is *commutative* if it commutes with itself.

###### Lemma 3.

A $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observable $`E`$ corresponding to the matrix $`(c_{n,m})`$ commutes with $`P`$ if and only if

$$c_{n+k,m+k}=c_{n,m}$$
(23)
for all $`n,m,k`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to the proof of Proposition 1 in , which characterizes commutative $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observables. Define

$$\mu _{n,m,Y}:=e_n|P(X)E(Y)E(Y)P(X)|e_m$$

for all $`n,m`$ and $`X,Y(𝕋)`$. Now

$$e_n|P(X)E(Y)|e_m=\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{s,m}_Xz^{sn}\text{d}\mu (z)_Yz^{ms}\text{d}\mu (z)$$

and

$$e_n|E(Y)P(X)|e_m=\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{n,s}_Xz^{ms}\text{d}\mu (z)_Yz^{sn}\text{d}\mu (z).$$

It follows that for all $`k`$,

$$_𝕋z^k\text{d}\mu _{n,m,Y}(z)=[c_{n+k,m}c_{n,mk}]_Yz^{mnk}\text{d}\mu (z).$$

If $`P(X)E(Y)=E(Y)P(X)`$ for all $`X,Y(𝕋)`$, equation (23) is satisfied. Also, if (23) is valid, then

$`\mu _{n,m,Y}(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[c_{n+k,m}c_{n,mk}]{\displaystyle _X}z^k\text{d}\mu (z){\displaystyle _Y}z^{mnk}\text{d}\mu (z)`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
for all $`n,m`$. ∎

###### Proposition 6.

A $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observable $`E`$ is fuzzy with respect to $`P`$ if and only if $`E`$ commutes with $`P`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that if $`E`$ is fuzzy with respect to $`P`$, then it also commutes with $`P`$. Let now $`E`$ be a $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observable that commutes with $`P`$. Then according to Lemma 3, the matrix elements $`c_{n,m}`$ of $`E`$ satisfy $`c_{n+k,m+k}=c_{n,m}`$ for all $`n,m,k`$. Let us define the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }:`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=c_{k,0}`$. Since $`c_{n,m}=c_{nm,0}`$ for all $`n,m`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ determines all the matrix elements $`c_{n,m}`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has following properties:

* $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=1`$;
* $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }(k)}`$ for all $`k`$;
* $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(k)|1`$ for all $`k`$;
* $`_{n,m=N}^N\overline{d}_n\mathrm{\Phi }(nm)d_m0`$ for all sequences $`(d_n)_n`$ and every $`N`$.

Condition (iv) means that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive definite. Herglotz’s theorem  (see e.g. \[13, p. 95\], \[16, p. 293\]) states that in this situation there is a unique positive measure $`\rho \text{M}(𝕋)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=_𝕋k,z\text{d}\rho (z)=_𝕋z^k\text{d}\rho (z).$$
(24)
Because

$$\rho (𝕋)=_𝕋\text{d}\rho (z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=1,$$

$`\rho `$ is a probability measure. Now

$`e_n|E(X)|e_m`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(nm){\displaystyle _X}z^{mn}\text{d}\mu (z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝕋}y^{nm}\text{d}\rho (y){\displaystyle _𝕋}\chi _X(z)z^{mn}\text{d}\mu (z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝕋}{\displaystyle _𝕋}(y^1z)^{mn}\chi _X(z)\text{d}\mu (z)\text{d}\rho (y)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝕋}{\displaystyle _𝕋}z^{mn}\chi _X(yz)\text{d}\mu (z)\text{d}\rho (y)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝕋}z^{mn}\left({\displaystyle _𝕋}\chi _{z^1X}(y)\text{d}\rho (y)\right)\text{d}\mu (z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝕋}z^{mn}\rho (z^1X)\text{d}\mu (z),`$
so $`E`$ can be written as

$$E(X)=_𝕋\rho (z^1X)\text{d}P(z).$$
(25)
We finally note that not all commutative $`𝕋`$-covariant localization observables are fuzzy. This can be demonstrated by the following example, due to A. Toigo . Set $`c_{n,n}=1`$ for all $`n`$ and for all $`n,m,nm`$ define

$$c_{n,m}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if n and m are even;}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`(c_{n,m})`$ satisfies conditions (a) and (b) stated after eq. (22), and using Proposition 1 in  it is easy to see that the localization observable $`E`$ defined by $`(c_{n,m})`$ is commutative. Since, for example, $`c_{2,4}=1`$ and $`c_{3,5}=0`$, Lemma 3 shows that $`E`$ does not commute with $`P`$ and therefore, is not fuzzy.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Alessandro Toigo for his useful comments on an early version of this paper.


format: text

text:
# Evolutionary model with genetics, aging and knowledge

## I Introduction

Learning is any relatively permanent change in behavior which occurs as a result of experience or practice ref1 . Learning is necessary for an individual to gain autonomy from its natural, physiological and social restrictions, leading the population to improve its life conditions ref2 . Some theories say that behavior is in part inherited from parents ref3 , but there is general agreement that the environment is the main factor influencing it. Experiences that produce knowledge cannot be inherited from parents, as is the case for the genome, but rather are acquired in the course of life from different elements of the environment surrounding each individual ref3 . The process of learning is very complicated and different for each individual of a population. Although the overall conditions for all individuals could be the same, after this process each individual has a different level of knowledge. Differences in the environment or experiences in life, although sometimes very hard to notice (for example: presence of parents during childhood, interaction with other individuals or material environment, education, etc.), produce different levels of knowledge and, as a consequence, a different behavior that depends on the environment surrounding an individual ref4 .

Genetic evolution modifies the frequency distribution of survival strategies in a population, whereas learning modifies the probability distribution of survival strategies in the repertoire of an individual ref5 . Reproduction of simple organisms (for example: haploids) does not allow them to improve very much their genetic code, but higher organisms reproduce in a more effective way, in order to escape death (for example: asexual and sexual diploids) ref6 ; ref7 . Likewise, primitive organisms present similar behavior and responses to the environment, while higher organisms present a more diverse behavior in order to get a better fitness to the environment ref2 . This depends on the cognition capacity, i.e. all ways in which animals take in information about the world through the senses, process, retain and decide to act on it ref8 . However, we clearly know that this knowledge affects the fitness of individuals with their environment, modifying their survival skills and finally improving the survival rate of the whole population. Some learned behavior is first introduced into an individual repertoire and, depending on its consequences, will be acquired by the whole population, modifying even its longevity ref9 . As it has been observed by Hinton and Nowlan, learning has a drastic effect on evolution ref10 .

In this paper we present a simple model to study the process of learning using a bit string to represent the knowledge acquired by individuals as a result of interactions with their natural environment (individual learning) and other individuals (social learning). This bit string has an age structure, where each individual has a probability to learn, at every year, from the elements mentioned before. This finally gives as a result the differences in the level of knowledge of individuals. We consider the Penna model to represent the genetic part of individuals (inherited from parents and immutable during one individual’s life). Using our model, we study how this genetic part could change after many generations as a consequence of the knowledge acquired by ancestors. These effects have already been studied using another simpler model, first by Hinton and Nowlan ref10 , and later by Fontanari and Meir ref7 , showing the importance of learning in evolution.

The paper is organized in the following way: In the first part we explain the Penna model and a preliminary modification to this model, in order to represent families. After that, we explain how knowledge is represented in our model, and the two ways of learning. Then, we present the results of our simulations which were obtained using different values of probabilities, learning strategies and the two ways of relating knowledge to survival. We also consider a case where females are allowed to select males as a function of their knowledge. Finally we discuss our results, their implications and the limitations of our model.

## II The Penna Model

The original asexual Penna model ref11  represents each individual of the population by a bit string of zeros and ones, where each bit position corresponds to a “year”. In this paper we use the sexual Penna model introduced by Bernardes ref12 ; ref13  which corresponds to a reproductive regime of diploid organisms, the population being divided into males and females. These age structured models are very useful to represent and study some important characteristics in the evolution of populations ref14 .

In this model each individual is represented by two bit strings of size $`A_{max}`$ read in parallel, where each pair of homologous bits corresponds to one “year” in the life of the individual. Genetic diseases are represented by 1 bits in the strings. If an individual has two bits equal to 1 in the same position (homozygote), it will start to suffer the effects of an inherited disease from that year on until its death. There is a limit number $`T`$ of diseases each individual can accumulate: if at some age an individual has already acquired $`T`$ diseases, it dies at that time step. In the present work, we do not consider dominant positions, i.e. positions chosen at the beginning of the simulation, where a presence of a bit 1 in one of the strings (heterozygote) represents a disease for the individual. In the study of the fixation of bad genes (explained below) it has been noticed ref15 , that these dominant positions accumulate 1 bits with less probability, what is called the repulsion effect. This effect does not modify the essence of our results.

An individual dies not only when the number of accumulated diseases reaches the threshold $`T`$, but also as a result of competition for food and space against other individuals, represented by the logistic Verhulst factor:

$$V=\frac{N(t)}{N_{max}},$$
(1)
where $`N_{max}`$ is the maximum population size the environment can support and $`N(t)`$ is the current population size. At each time step and for each individual a random number between zero and one is generated and compared with $`V`$: if it is smaller than $`V`$, the individual dies independently of its age or genome.

Every time step each female with age equal to or greater than the minimum reproductive age $`R`$ randomly chooses a male with age also equal to or greater than $`R`$ to mate, generating $`B`$ offspring. This mating process is repeated every year until death. The offspring genome is constructed in the following way: the mother genome is cut in a random position, generating four bit string pieces. Two complementary pieces, each one coming from one of the original strings, are joined to form the offspring string which contains the genetic charge to be inherited from the mother. After this, $`M`$ random mutations are included. Only deleterious mutations are considered: if a 0 bit is tossed to mutate, it is changed to 1; on the other hand if a 1 bit is chosen it remains equal to 1. The same procedure is repeated with the father genome, to produce the second string of the baby. The sex of the newborn is randomly chosen. All this process of testing the survival of each individual and the process of reproduction, both applied over the whole population, represents a time step, i.e. one year in the simulation.

After many generations, stability is reached and the population self-organizes, presenting some properties that can be measured. Stability means that the average number of individuals of any given age is constant in time as well as the concentration of 1-bits at every string position (locus) averaged over the whole population. The first property to be measured is the survival rate ref16  given by:

$$S(i)=\frac{n(i+1)}{n(i)},$$
(2)
where $`n(i)`$ is the current number of individuals with age $`i`$. The survival rate represents the probability an individual with age $`i`$ has to reach age $`i+1`$.

Another characteristic is the fixation of bad genes (1 bits) ref15 . Due to the Darwinian dynamics of the model, the population self-organizes allowing the survival of only the best-fitted individuals, i.e. those that present a rather clean genome before the minimum reproduction age: only these individuals live enough to generate offspring and their genomes are passed on to future generations. Because mutations are unavoidable, after many generations they accumulate at the last part of the genome, corresponding to old ages. That is why aging appears ref11 ; ref16  (i.e. the continuous decrement of the survival rate) which starts just after the reproduction age. The probability to find individuals with heterozygote positions is high up to the reproduction age, because these positions do not represent any disease for them. On the other hand, homozygote positions, with both bits set to 1, are not usual before the minimum reproduction age, keeping individuals alive until they can reproduce.

### II.1 The Penna Model with Families

In order to simulate the teaching process from parents to offspring, we introduce some modifications in the Penna model creating some arrangements representing families. Now a female that reaches age $`R`$ chooses a male to mate and establishes a family in order to take care of the offspring. Each offspring, when born, has a probability equal to 50% to stay into the family or to live alone. We consider that the purpose of a family is parental care, so a family without offspring staying in the family, will not continue to be a family: in this case, parents become single again, waiting to search for a new partner in the next time step. Otherwise they continue as a couple breeding again every year, and taking care of the offspring. If one parent dies, the other searches for a new partner to mate and to take care of the offspring. If both parents die, offspring do not keep the family together and live alone from that year on. An offspring that reaches age $`R`$ should leave the family and look for a partner to mate and try to start its own family. All these conditions mimic characteristics of the behavior of animals that practice parental care ref17 ; ref18 .

So far, the only change in the model is to include a concept of fidelity in the process of reproduction which, if violated, does not have any consequence for the offspring, as opposed to the model proposed by Sousa and Moss de Oliveira ref19 . No explicit advantages are imposed for individuals in or out a family. If a family succeeds to be kept together, in the worst case, it will generate some offspring with similar genomes, like brothers; this would carry an effect in diversity, but our results show that fixation of bad genes presents the same feature as in the normal case. Martins and Penna ref20  studied a model of infidelity with selection, where off-couple offspring live longer than the ones generated by faithful parents. In their model, a female sometimes prefers an off-couple partner older than her social mate: we did not use this kind of selection in our simulations. In the section corresponding to sexual selection, we will comment on some consequences of fidelity in our model with families, when selection as a function of knowledge is allowed.

Using the same initial condition as in the standard Penna model, the overall characteristics of the population are not affected from the very beginning of the simulation, and at stability averages are the same. The values for survival rate and fixation of bad genes obtained with the standard Penna model are reproduced too, so our modifications did not affect neither the fitness of individuals nor diversity in the population as a whole (In the present work we consider the quantity of genotypes and the frequency of heterozygotes positions, as a measurement of diversity).

## III The Role of Knowledge

Now we consider a third bit string, also with the same age structure and the same size $`A_{max}`$, used to represent the genome. As opposed to genomic bit strings, this third string has all the bits set to 0 at birth, but will change during life. Every time step, an individual has a certain probability to acquire some knowledge at that age. This knowledge will be represented by a 1 bit in that position of the third string, otherwise the 0 bit will be kept, representing no learning at all at that year. Here we do not consider all the processes of learning, which are very complicated and take different periods of time to reinforce what has been learned in order not to be forgotten ref5 ; ref8 . This time depends on the cognitive capacity of the individual. We consider an “acquired knowledge” only when it has been completely assimilated by the individual, no matter how this occurs.

This age structured model deals with knowledge in such a way that each position represents something which can be learned at that age, like walking and communicating at the beginning of life, self-protecting and getting food supply some time later, etc. Obviously we consider only the kind of knowledge which could be useful for survival ref2 . Although it would be difficult for the individuals to select what to learn, an individual grows and learns in order to acquire the kind of knowledge which is important to improve its surviving skills ref2 .

Now, an individual with age $`i`$ accumulates a quantity $`C(i)`$, the sum of knowledge bits, which can be used to improve its survival capacity ref2 ; ref8 ; ref9 . As we have seen, in the Penna model an individual dies due to two reasons, accumulation of diseases or the Verhulst factor. The latter represents competition for food or space and depends on a number randomly tossed for each individual at every time step. We model the improvement of survival probability for an individual as a function of the quantity of acquired knowledge $`C(i)`$ by a new Verhulst factor given by:

$$V^{}=V\left[1\frac{C(i)}{A_{max}}\right].$$
(3)
If the quantity $`C(i)`$ is zero (no acquired knowledge), the old Verhulst factor is kept and the individual dies with the same probability as in the model without knowledge. On the other hand, if a “$`A_{max}`$” years old individual accumulated a quantity $`C(A_{max})`$ equal to $`A_{max}`$, its probability to die via Verhulst would be zero. Of course, no individual reaches an age equal to $`A_{max}`$, due to aging.

Another possibility for knowledge to help an individual’s survival is by adding years to life as a function of the accumulated knowledge, which can be expressed as:

$$Y=fC(i),$$
(4)
where $`f`$ is a factor regulating the equivalence between quantity of knowledge accumulated and further years of life. So, an individual accumulating $`T`$ diseases, which would therefore die at some genetically determined age $`x`$, will have $`Y`$ further years added to its life span according to its knowledge.

### III.1 Ways of Learning

There are two ways of learning. The first one, “individual learning”, is due to the interaction of the individual with its natural environment, in a process of trial-and-error ref9 ; ref18 : knowledge is acquired from an individual’s own experiences, such as avoiding dangers in nature or determining some new food supply ref9 . So we consider that an individual has a certain probability, at some age, to have this kind of experience and learn from it: this is represented by switching the 0 bit to 1 in that position of its knowledge string. If this individual does not have this kind of experience or did not succeed in learning from it, it will keep the 0 bit in that position. That probability represents the cognitive capacity of individuals and is different for each species ref8 , this depends on some physiological characteristics ref21 .

The second way, “social learning”, is due to the interactions between individuals, so a naïve individual (observer) which spends some time near another one (teacher, in general a conspecific), can learn something just by copying from this partner, i.e. a 1 bit will be set at that position, (obviously, if the teacher does not have the knowledge corresponding to that year, nothing will be learned by the observer, the 0 bit being kept in that position). Here we are considering together the two kinds of social learning, although the most useful for survival would be “true imitation”, which directly affects the behavior of the naïve individual ref4 ; ref9 ; ref22 ; ref23 ; ref24 . Anyway, “nonimitative social learning” is also possible, and could be useful for individuals in an unchanging environment, so it would not be rejected. In the present work, we only consider one species in our population, so the teacher is always a conspecific individual. However, there are some cases, in nature, where some animals can learn from other species ref18 .

It has been observed in some species that family individuals are more likely chosen as teachers ref22 , so as a special case of social learning we consider the parents as teachers. This can be observed in species that practice parental care. If an offspring is kept into the family, it will be strongly influenced by its parents behavior and will copy it during its stay within the family ref17 ; ref18 . Then, if at some year both parents have the knowledge corresponding to that year, the offspring will learn this and a 1 bit will be set at that position. On the opposite, if both parents do not have the knowledge corresponding to that year, the offspring will keep a 0 bit in that position. Finally, if only one of the parents has the knowledge corresponding to that position, we consider that the offspring will acquire that knowledge with a 50% probability.

## IV Results

We start our simulations using the standard Penna model and with all the positions in the bit strings of the whole population equal to zero. After around 40000 time steps the population has self-organized with the genetic characteristics shown before. Then, from the 50000th time step on, we let the population start to acquire knowledge and wait for another 50000 time steps in order to take averages during the next 20000 time steps. The values used for all the simulations shown in this paper are in Table 1.

First we study the case of individual learning, considering different probabilities for an individual to learn randomly, simulating the cognitive capacity of individuals. These probabilities are kept constant, the same for the whole population. As a second step we study the social learning allowing interactions between individuals: at every year an individual can learn by itself, or, with a certain probability, it can copy some knowledge from another individual randomly chosen.

Finally we study the effect of families in the process of learning. An individual living without a family follows the same rules of learning explained before. Parents living in families also follow these same rules. On the opposite, offspring living in a family suffer overprotection from their parents, so they can only learn from parents and, with a smaller probability, from other individuals. They have no possibility to acquire experiences by themselves, i.e. they are not allowed to have individual learning.

### IV.1 New Verhulst Factor

First we consider the case where accumulated knowledge modifies the Verhulst factor for each individual at every year, beginning with the simplest case of individual learning. We used three different probabilities, say $`p=`$ 25%, 50% and 75%, for an individual to acquire knowledge at every year. It can be seen that the probability of finding an individual with knowledge at any age is the same as the fixed value used in the simulation. The survival rate curve and the fixation of bad genes do not suffer any change, compared to the results obtained for the Penna model without knowledge, in any of the three probabilities used.

Figure 1 shows the average accumulated knowledge as a function of age. They fit exactly the linear function: $`C(i)=p(i+1)`$. Then, we interpret that in this uninteresting case the process of learning is just accumulated due to the probability we fixed a priori.

As a second step we allow social learning due to interactions between individuals. Figure 2 shows results for a simulation where each individual has a probability to learn by itself (individual learning) equal to 25%, and to copy knowledge from others (social learning) with a probability equal to 25%. For a better understanding, we also plot the curve of knowledge corresponding to the case of individual learning alone, with probability equal to 25%. Now, the behavior of the acquired knowledge can be understood as a function of the probability of getting knowledge by itself plus the probability of finding an individual that has the knowledge corresponding to that year.

In our simulation we did not put any restriction in choosing a teacher, so the probability of finding a younger individual increases with age. For example if a naïve individual with age equal to 5 chooses as teacher an individual with age equal to 2, therefore without knowledge corresponding to age 5 yet, the naïve individual does not have anything to learn from this teacher. It is easy to see that the probability of finding an individual with acquired knowledge reduces with age and finally for the last year (allowed by aging) there is nobody older with the knowledge corresponding to that year. The figure shows this decreasing probability and at the last point of the curve it has the same value of the curve corresponding to individual learning alone.

Concerning the survival rates and fixation of bad genes, they behave exactly in the same way as in the cases studied before. Then, for this case where knowledge modifies only the Verhulst factor, no special behavior can be noticed and the features observed depend only on the learning probabilities we fixed a priori. We also tested other values of probability and no qualitative change has been observed. In the case of families responsible for the parental care, the behavior of the acquired knowledge is the same as in the former case. Also, the survival rates and the fixation of bad genes do not suffer any change, so we left this case to be treated in the next section.

### IV.2 Adding Years to Life

Now we consider the case where accumulated knowledge adds years to life. As we mentioned before, in this case we need a conversion factor to relate acquired knowledge with years, so in all our simulations we use the value $`f=0.5`$; then two 1 bits in the knowledge string represent one more year of life. Other values for this factor do not change the qualitative behavior of our results. Although the chosen value could be considered to be over rated, it helps to give a better idea of the effects we will now explain.

We start again with the simplest case of individual learning. Figure 3 shows the probability to find an individual with acquired knowledge as a function of age position along the bit string. We use again three values for the probability to acquire knowledge at every year, say 25%, 50% and 75%. For a better understanding, we also plot in the same figure the survival rates for these three cases and the one obtained using the Penna model without knowledge. Now, the survival rate is improved as a function of the probability of acquiring knowledge. Individuals can reach higher ages when they have a higher probability to acquire knowledge, i.e. species with a higher cognitive capacity can better improve their longevity ref9 .

Another interesting feature is the higher probability of finding individuals with knowledge in the last years, effect that was not observed in the simulation where only the Verhulst factor was modified by knowledge (Figures 1 and 2).

The accumulated knowledge as a function of age fits the linear function corresponding to the probabilities fixed in the simulations only during the first ages, where selection keeps the genome clean and the probability to die for this reason is low. This situation changes at older ages because the survival probability is lower, then, the accumulated knowledge comes to compensate diseases in genome. At some ages this effect becomes very strong and tends to stop aging, presenting a knee in the survival rate (Figure 3).

As an example, in Figure 4 we show the fixation of bad genes for a probability of acquiring knowledge equal to 25%. We also plot the case for the standard Penna model. Although survival rate has been improved, the genetic fitnesses are now worse than in the normal case, i.e. the probability of finding 1 bits in the positions is slightly greater before the reproduction age, and bad genes accumulate two years earlier, in the last part of the genome. If we used a higher probability of acquiring knowledge, this effect would be stronger. This further supports the statement that knowledge compensates for the accumulation of diseases in the genome. So a population with a high level of knowledge can afford to be less fit to its environment.

A study of the case where social learning is allowed shows these same characteristics improving slightly the overall survival rate, although the genetic fitness of population becomes even worse. As in the case where knowledge modifies the Verhulst factor, we can observe that at early ages the probability of finding an individual with knowledge in these positions is high but this probability reduces for later ages and finally at the last years we observe the same values of probability as in the former case, i.e. individuals with knowledge in the last years are preferred by natural selection.

As a special case of social learning, we study the case where parents take care of offspring and transmit their knowledge to them. Results for the survival rate and the fixation of bad genes are the same as for the last case, i.e. slightly better for the survival probability and worse for the fitness. In Figure 5 we see the probability of finding an individual with knowledge as a function of the age position. We plot together the case with families and the one with individual and social learning without families. The differences at early ages are due to offspring living within families: since they are not allowed to have individual learning, their level of knowledge is conditioned by the one of the teachers. This agrees with the statement that social learning is less adaptive than individual learning ref9 ; ref22 . Observers learn only what teachers know, so if the environment changed, the acquired knowledge would not be useful in this new situation.

#### IV.2.1 Sexual Selection

Finally we study the case where, at the time of reproduction, females prefer males with high accumulated knowledge ref22 . We simulated two cases: first, only females with high accumulated knowledge show this mating pattern; second, all females select knowledgeable males. Results are not very different although the last case seems to be slightly better in improving the survival rate. The main consequence of this selection is the improvement of the offspring knowledge due to the higher probability to have a father with acquired knowledge.

The survival rates of the population are improved, when this kind of sexual selection is allowed. For the case with individual and social learning, this improvement is very noticeable. On the other hand, in the case with families this improvement is hardly noticeable. The difference is due to fidelity because, in the case with families, selection can be done just once, while in the other cases selection is repeated at every time step. So, without fidelity, selection as a function of the level of knowledge is more efficient in improving the survival rates, as can be seen in Figure 6. The fitness is also improved, because the average genome of the population is cleaner than in all the cases considered before, even the case without knowledge.

## V Discussion

Although our model for a process of learning seems to be very simple to represent such a complicated process, it reproduces some characteristics of animal behavior as a function of the acquired knowledge. The first way to improve the surviving process by knowledge did not affect at all the characteristics of the standard Penna model due to the random nature of the Verhulst factor, but these results help us in the analysis of the behavior in the other case where knowledge can add years to life.

There are some theories about variation of intelligence during life ref1 ; ref21 . Intelligence is defined as the capacity of learning, so we should expect that this capacity would not be a constant through life. We tested some variations in the probability of acquiring knowledge as a function of age (increasing or decreasing this probability as the individual grows), but by modifying only the Verhulst factor, the probability of finding an individual with acquired knowledge follows exactly the shape of the function we used. Also, the survival rate did not change at all. In the case of adding years to life, results follow the same shape of the functions only at the beginning but in the last years this probability is higher. However, these differences were harder to notice due to the shape of the functions. That is why we only used a constant probability of acquiring knowledge. This does not seem to be so far from reality because, according to some authors, intelligence is developed during the early years of life, but then it keeps constant until death ref21 , although some features in behavior affect the capacity of learning in the last years ref1 .

In the case of adding years to life as a function of the acquired knowledge, the genetic part becomes worse than in the standard Penna model. This can be understood as the compensation of genetic deficiencies with knowledge, but we can also understand this as an effect of the kind of activity an individual develops during life. So, if an individual spends most of its time in mental activities, in most cases it presents a high level of knowledge, but it becomes physically worse adapted to a natural environment. This will also have inherited consequences in the next generations. This result can be compared with some experimental results of the mortality in the cities and in the country, and also comparations between statistics of countries with differents levels of education and development ref25 ; ref26 ; ref27 .

As we said, our model reproduces the compensation of genetic deficiencies with knowledge, explaining the higher probability to find an individual with knowledge at the last years of life. At the beginning of life this compensation does not seem important, but at older ages when the probability to die is higher due to aging, it becomes more important, so only individuals with knowledge keep alive. This has already been stated by Kaplan and Robson ref21 , showing the differences between species with a different size of brain, that is directly reflected in the cognitive capacity.

The most important feature our model reproduces is the improvement of survival rates as a consequence of knowledge, a well known fact: the development of a society is measured by its life expectancy. The same can be noticed comparing species with different cognitive capacity ref21 , where mortality at older ages seems to be smaller for species with more capacity. When we use knowledge to add years to life, we always observe the improvement of survival rates, although the case with sexual selection without families also improves the fitness of the population. The best fitted individuals will also be the ones with more accumulated knowledge, so, after many generations, natural selection and sexual selection performed by females yield a population with only the best fitted individuals and accumulated knowledge.

It has already pointed out, that only considering the genetic part in modeling population dynamics, we are not able to reproduce the behavior of mortality at older ages ref28 . So other factors have already been considered ref28 ; ref29 ; ref30 ; ref31 ; ref32 . In the present work, we tried to add a social factor which in an independent way, has consequences in the survival rates at older ages, of course, this would never be the only factor, but some results show that there is a strong consequence in the mortality due to the knowledge ref25 ; ref26 ; ref27 .

The results about the consequences of parents overprotection seem to reflect also in some way the differences between children who are not under a constant protection of their parents and the ones who are. The first ones sometimes are better prepared to face some difficulties because they have learned by their own experiences to deal with hard situations that have been avoided by the parents of overprotected children. However, we can see here one of the drawbacks of our model: it does not consider that some parents try to offer to their offspring the knowledge they do not have. This could produce some improvements in the process of learning of overprotected children.

Another characteristic reflected in the case with parental care is the difference between social and individual learning. Offspring in families were not allowed to have individual learning, so within this kind of individuals the probability to find acquired knowledge is smaller than for the rest of the population, because it is conditioned by the level of knowledge of the teachers. In nature, the process of learning by trial-and-error seems to be better adaptive to the environment and individuals can respond better to any change in the environment ref9 ; ref22 .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J.S. Sá Martins and D. Stauffer for helpful discussions and critical readings of the manuscript. This work was partially supported by CLAF and Brazilian agencies CAPES, CNPq and FAPERJ.


text:
# Generalized survival in equilibrium step fluctuations

## Abstract

We investigate the dynamics of a generalized survival probability $`S(t,R)`$ defined with respect to an arbitrary reference level $`R`$ (rather than the average) in equilibrium step fluctuations. The exponential decay at large time scales of the generalized survival probability is numerically analyzed. $`S(t,R)`$ is shown to exhibit simple scaling behavior as a function of system-size $`L`$, sampling time $`\delta t`$, and the reference level $`R`$. The generalized survival time scale, $`\tau _s(R)`$, associated with $`S(t,R)`$ is shown to decay exponentially as a function of $`R`$.

Controlling the stability of nanostructures is an important fundamental issue in nanoscience. A key problem in this respect is the random stochastic interface dynamics associated with equilibrium nanometer scale thermal fluctuations unavoidably present in all nanosystems. Very interesting questions krug ; us1 ; magda1 ; expt2 ; BR  have recently been addressed regarding the complex dynamics of fluctuating interfaces in the context of first–passage statistics, which seems to be the appropriate framework in investigating the time it takes for a nanodevice to first fluctuate into an unstable state. It turns out that useful dynamical quantities such as persistence probability $`P(t)`$ krug ; us1 ; expt2  (i.e. the probability that a stochastic variable does not return to its initial value over time $`t`$) and survival probability $`S(t)`$ us1 ; BR  (i.e. the probability that a stochastic variable does not cross its average level up to time $`t`$) can be numerically and experimentally investigated for interfaces with dynamics governed by various kinetic mechanisms (such as high–temperature attachment/detachment of atoms at the step edge or low–temperature step edge diffusion of atoms) to gain insight into the stability issue.

Much work has been devoted rev2 ; ellen  over the last decade in understanding equilibrium fluctuations on vicinal surfaces, mostly using the dynamic scaling approach. If $`h(x,t)`$ is the dynamical height (with respect to the chosen reference position which is defined to be the average position, i.e. the $`h=0`$ line) fluctuation of a thermally fluctuating step as a function of the lateral position $`x`$ and time $`t`$ (where $`t`$ is also measured from an arbitrary time origin), then $`h(t)`$ at each value of $`x`$ is a stochastic dynamical variable by virtue of equilibrium thermal fluctuations. Because of the spatially extended nature of the step fluctuations through its dependence on both $`x`$ and $`t`$, the problem is non-Markovian, and persistence maj  and survival BR  concepts should be particularly relevant statistical tools in understanding the complex problem of surface fluctuations.

In this paper we introduce the new concept of a generalized survival probability which enables us to probe deeper into the nature of the stochastic process of interface step fluctuations. The generalized survival probability is the probability $`S(t,R)`$ that a given lateral step position $`x`$ with a height (i.e., step fluctuation measured from the equilibrium step position) $`h(x,t)`$ at time $`t`$ does never cross a pre-assisgned reference level of the height, $`R`$, throughout the entire evolution. The particular case with $`R=0`$ (i.e., the probability of the dynamical step height not returning in time $`t`$ to its average (“equilibrium”) $`R=0`$ level) has been studied recently BR  both analytically and experimentally, and it has been shown to exhibit an exponential decay at large times, $`S(t)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _s)`$, where $`\tau _s`$ is the survival time scale that provides information about the underlying kinetics. The resulting surface step fluctuation survival probability $`S(t)=S(t,R=0)`$ and the associated time scale $`\tau _s`$ have also recently been studied experimentally using dynamical scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) on different metallic systems: Al steps on Si $`(111)`$ surface at high temperatures, and Ag and Pb $`(111)`$ surfaces at relatively low temperatures future\_exp . In this paper we show numerically that $`S(t,R)`$ also has an exponential behavior at large time, $`S(t,R)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _s(R))`$, where $`\tau _s(R)`$ is the generalized survival time scale. Our study reveals the dependence of $`\tau _s(R)`$ on the system size $`L`$, sampling interval $`\delta t`$, and reference level position $`R`$, allowing us to establish the complete scaling form of $`S(t,R)`$. In particular, the sampling interval (i.e. the time between successive measurements) samp  turns out to be an essential ingredient inherent in any real experimental measurement procedure. Also the study of the dependence of the generalized survival time scale on the choice of the reference level $`R`$, which turns out to be exponential, should have particular importance for understanding the effect of thermal fluctuations at the nanoscale.

In this study we consider the case of the high-temperature step fluctuations dominated by atomistic attachment and detachment (AD), where the step edge is known rev2  to be well described by the coarse-grained second-order non-conserved linear Langevin equation, also known as the Edwards–Wilkinson (EW) equation EW

$$\frac{h(x,t)}{t}=^2h(x,t)+\eta (x,t),$$
(1)
where $`^2`$ refers to the spatial derivative (with respect to $`x`$, the lateral position along the step), $`\eta (x,t)`$ with $`\eta (x,t)\eta (x^{^{}},t^{^{}})=2D\delta (xx^{^{}})\delta (tt^{^{}})`$ is the usual uncorrelated random gaussian noise corresponding to the non-conserved white noise associated with the random AD process, and $`D`$ is the noise strength. The AD process, thought to be extremely important for relatively high-temperature step fluctuations, has been extensively studied in the literature using the EW equation ellen .

For equilibrium step fluctuations, we define the generalized survival probability with respect to the height reference level $`R`$, $`S(t,R)`$, as the probability for the height variable to remain consistently $`above`$ a certain pre-assigned value “$`R`$” over time $`t`$:

$$S(t,R)\text{Prob}\{h(x,t^{})>R,t_0t^{}t_0+t\},$$
(2)
where $`h(x,t)`$ is the dynamical height of the interface at a fixed lateral position $`x`$ at time $`t`$, and $`t_0`$ is the initial time of the measurement. Although the above definition involves the dynamical variable $`h(x,t)`$ defined for a particular lateral position $`x`$, we take a statistical ensemble average over all lateral positions to obtain a purely time dependent stochastic dynamical quantity $`S(t,R)`$. Obviously, another quantity that can be measured is the probability for the height stochastic variable to remain $`below`$ the reference level up to time $`t`$. Since in our case the dynamics of the interface fluctuations obeys a linear stochastic equation, the interface preserves the up-down symmetry along the direction perpendicular to the step edge. As a consequence, in what follows we consider the average of the probabilities of remaining always above $`R`$ and below $`R`$, with $`R0`$.

The generalized survival probability function, $`S(t,R)`$, defined in Eq. (2) above, leads to a hierarchy of generalized survival time scales, $`\tau _s(R)`$, if the steady-state decay of $`S(t,R)`$ in time follows an exponential trend, $`S(t,R)e^{t/\tau _s(R)}`$. As we show below, this indeed is obtained for Edwards–Wilkinson equilibrium step fluctuation phenomena, allowing us to define and measure the non-trivial survival time scale $`\tau _s(R),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}RR_{max}`$, that varies between $`\tau _s(R=0)`$ and $`\tau _s(R_{max})`$, where $`\tau _s(R=0)`$ is the usual survival time scale and $`\tau _s(R_{max})`$ is the survival time with respect to the highest reference level $`R_{max}`$ that can be defined for a model with finite roughness (i.e. rms fluctuations of the height variable with respect to the average). $`R_{max}`$ is limited by the maximum value of the height fluctuation amplitude. Obviously, $`S(t,R)`$ and $`\tau _s(R)`$ are natural generalizations of the survival probability $`S(t)`$ and the survival time scale $`\tau _s`$, respectively, to the more complex concept of distribution of generalized survival times with limiting behavior (i.e. $`R=0`$) providing the usual survival time.

The exponential decay at large time of $`S(t,R)`$ that we find numerically is not surprinsing. The generalized survival probability with respect to the reference level $`R`$ can be regarded as the probability $`Z(t)`$ of no zero crossing of the new stochastic variable $`H(x,t)=h(x,t)R`$. What we are looking for is the probability for the stochastic variable $`H(x,t)`$ to remain positive up to time $`t`$ (or, equivalently, the probability for $`h(x,t)+R`$ to remain negative over time $`t`$). This type of question for the gaussian stationary processes with zero mean has been addressed by mathematicians for a long time Slepian . The no zero crossing probability is traditionally investigated in conjunction with the autocorrelation function, $`C_HH(x,t_1)H(x,t_2)`$ (where $`\mathrm{}`$ represents an average over all realizations of $`H(x,t)`$ arising from the thermal noise source). It is known NR  that for a stationary gaussian process (i.e. $`C_H=f(|t_1t_2|)f(t)`$) with an autocorrelation function decaying faster than $`1/t`$ at large $`t`$, the asymptotic behavior of the no zero crossing probability is exponential, $`Z(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mu t)`$. The autocorrelation function $`C_H(t)`$ itself has been shown BR  to be stationary at late times and to decay exponentially. This, along with the exponential decay of $`Z(t)`$, ensures an exponential decay for $`S(t,R)`$.

In order to numerically simulate the process described by Eq. (1), we have used discrete stochastic Monte Carlo simulations of the corresponding atomistic solid–on–solid model, the extensively studied Family model rev2 , which belongs asymptotically to the Edwards–Wilkinson universality class EW . The Family model in (1+1)–dimensions (i.e. one spatial variable and one temporal variable) is characterized by $`\beta =1/4`$, $`\alpha =1/2`$ and $`z=\alpha /\beta =2`$ rev2 , where the growth exponent $`\beta `$ is the rate of change of interface width (or roughness) in the transient regime ($`w(t)t^\beta `$), the roughness exponent $`\alpha `$ shows the saturation of the width for a system with fixed size $`L`$ in the steady state regime ($`w(L)L^\alpha `$) and $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent. This model involves the traditional random deposition (at a rate of one complete monolayer during one unit of time) and surface relaxation such that the adatoms are searching for the sites with the minimum local height. We have taken the relaxation length to be the lattice constant and we have applied the usual periodic boundary conditions. Typical sizes (i.e., number of lattice sites) used in this numerical work are $`100900`$, and the averaging procedure implies a number of at least $`10^5`$ independent runs. All the measurements correspond to the steady state regime where the interface roughness has reached a time independent equilibrium value (i.e., $`t_0L^z`$ in Eq. (2)). We also mention that the smallest value for the sampling time is $`1`$. We emphasize that our use of Family model is just a matter of convenience in simulating the EW equation rev2 ; our results are simply an exact discrete stochastic simulation of the EW equation.

Our results for the generalized survival probability and the associated time scale are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. $`S(t,R)`$ is simply computed as the fraction of sites which, starting above (below) the level $`R`$ ($`R`$) at time $`t_0`$, have not crossed the reference level up to a later time $`t_0+t`$. In Fig. 1 we show that, as expected, the generalized survival with respect to an arbitrary reference level $`R`$ follows an exponential decay at large times. The only varying parameter in Fig. 1 is the reference level $`R`$. We have considered six values for $`R`$, $`R=0,1,\mathrm{},5`$ (only the first four curves are displayed due to the limitations imposed by the quality of the statistics, since as $`R`$ increases it is less probable to have a reasonable number of lattice sites with height variables above (below) $`R`$ ($`R`$)). The dashed lines are fits of the long-time data to an exponential form, $`S(t,R)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _s(R))`$. The upper curve has $`R=0`$ and corresponds to the usual survival probability previously studied in Ref. BR . However, all the other curves are new and they prove that the generalized survival probability decays exponentially in the long-time limit, with an associated time scale, $`\tau _s(R)`$, which decreases with the reference level value. As shown in the inset of Fig. 1, the dependence of $`\tau _s(R)`$ on $`R`$ is exponential, but clearly more work is needed in order to understand this trend.

In Fig. 2 we have used several lattice sizes, sampling times and reference levels in order to identify the scaling behavior of $`S(t,R)`$. In panel (a) we show the generalized survival with respect to level $`R=1`$, measured using $`\delta t=1`$, for two system sizes: $`L=100`$ and $`L=200`$. We observe that the underlying survival time scale increases rapidly with $`L`$. In fact, $`\tau _s(R)`$ for a fixed $`R`$ is expected to grow proportionally to $`L^z`$ BR . However, we obtain that $`\tau _s(R=1)103`$ for $`L=100`$, and $`\tau _s(R=1)429`$ for $`L=200`$, so the measured generalized survival time exhibits a small deviation from the expected value of $`103\times 4=412`$. We find that this small effect is due to the dependence of the generalized survival on sampling time $`\delta t`$. This is clearly seen in panel (b). It turns out that a system with a fixed size ($`L=200`$) is characterized by different values of $`\tau _s(R)`$ if the sampling time of the measurement is adjusted. We observe that $`\tau _s(R)`$ increases weakly as the sampling time is increased. One might argue that this effect is very small and could be neglected, but we have found that the effect of the sampling time on the measured generalized survival probability has to be taken into account in order to find the complete scaling function of $`S(t,R)`$. In addition, this effect is even stronger for systems with slower dynamics (i.e. larger $`z`$) BR . Interestingly enough, we note that fixing the reference height level in the generalized survival probability problem introduces an additional length scale, that is related to the steady state value of the interface width, i.e. $`L^\alpha `$. Indeed, in panel (c) we look at three different systems with $`L=200`$, $`400`$ and $`900`$, respectively, and the generalized survival curves are calculated for $`R=1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$, respectively, i.e the level $`R`$ is varied proportionally to $`L^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =1/2`$ as appropriate for the EW equation. In addition, the sampling time for each of these three cases is also varied, $`\delta tL^z`$ ($`z=2`$), so we have considered $`\delta t=1`$ for $`L=100`$, $`\delta t=16`$ for $`L=400`$, and $`\delta t=81`$ for $`L=900`$, respectively. A perfect collapse of the curves $`S(t,R)`$ vs. $`t/L^z`$ occurs when using $`z=2.03`$, which agrees with the expected value $`z=2`$, characteristic for the EW dynamics.

This numerical analysis allows us to conclude that the scaling form of the generalized survival probability is

$$S(t,L,R,\delta t)=f(t/L^z,R/L^\alpha ,\delta t/L^z),$$
(3)
where the function $`f(x,y,z)`$ decays exponentially for large values of $`x`$. The rate of this decay decreases rather rapidly as $`y`$ is decreased and increases rather slowly as $`z`$ is decreased. Note that for $`y=0`$ we recover the scaling form of the usual survival probability with $`R=0`$ BR .

To conclude, we have shown that the generalized survival probability of equilibrium step fluctuations on vicinal surfaces with Edwards–Wilkinson dynamics decays exponentially at long times. We have investigated the associated generalized survival time scale that depends on the system size $`L`$, sampling time $`\delta t`$, and the choice of the reference level $`R`$. In particular, the depedence of $`\tau _s(R)`$ on $`R`$, which based on our preliminary investigations seems to have an exponential trend, should be useful in understanding the stability of thermally fluctuating interfaces. We have also shown that the generalized survival probability exhibits simple scaling as a function of $`L`$, $`\delta t`$, and $`R`$. Our numerical results on $`S(t,R)`$ can be easily extended to fluctuating interfaces characterized by different dynamical evolutions (such as low–temperature step edge diffusion limited kinetics) belonging to different universality classes. Our goal here, using the example of the step fluctuations process characterized by the EW universality class, is to establish the generalized survival probability as an important statistical concept in studying thermally fluctuating interfaces.

Finally, we mention that the generalized survival probability could be experimentally measured using dynamical STM step fluctuations data, opening the possibility for a direct approach to the crucial issue of interfacial stability. Our theoretical considerations for $`S(t,R)`$ should also be useful in understanding the dynamical evolution of other physical processes exp  where a first-passage statistics has proven to be an useful concept.

The authors gratefully acknowledge discussions with E.D. Williams and C. Dasgupta. This work is partially supported by NSF-DMR-MRSEC and US-ONR.