text:
# On Perturbations in Warm Inflation

## I Introduction

An inflationary phase gets rid of the major problems in cosmology, namely flatness, the horizon problem, homogeneity and numerical density of monopoleskolbtur . As strange as it may sound at first, it is actually very easy to have an exponential behavior of the scale factor. The main problem is how to attach the observed universe to the end of the inflationary epoch.

There are three possible solutions to this problem: reheatingkolbtur , preheatingpreheat , and warm inflationberefang ; olivrud ; gleiser ; bellini  (WI, from now on). In this work we focus on the latter, according to which the radiation is produced throughout inflation such that its energy density is kept nearly constant in this phase. This is accomplished by introducing adissipation term, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in the equation of motion for the inflaton, granting a continuous energy transfer from its decay. As a consequence, no reheating or preheating is necessary since we expect that enough radiation is produced to provide a smooth transition to the radiation era at the end of inflation.

On the other hand, being a two-field model, we are obliged to take into account entropy (isocurvature) perturbationsentropy ; bardeen  if the problem of structure formation is considered. As is well known, the very existence of the former may provide non trivial evolution of the curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces, $``$, since this quantity is no longer frozen for large scale modes as in single field inflationary models. The usual procedure for determining the amplitude of the observed perturbations takes the fact that $`\dot{}=0`$ for granted as soon as a given mode crosses outside the Hubble radius during inflation. The dissipation term is of central importance for the entropy perturbations, since in its absence the radiation is decoupled from the scalar field and therefore redshifted away together with its fluctuations during inflation. Then the overall scenario is reduced to a single field, where it is known that the entropy perturbations are neglected for long wavelength modes. In the presence of dissipation, radiation is rather produced than washed away and the effective fluid is a mixture of mutually interacting radiation and scalar field. The variation of its own effective equation of state is responsible for the entropy perturbations.

The main goal of this paper is to discuss the problem of perturbations in WI; the role of the dissipation term in the evolution of the entropy perturbation is exhibited after the development of a consistent gauge-invariant procedure.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II the basic equaitons of WI are introduced together with a generalization of the slow-roll parameters that allows a better charaterization of the slow-roll phase and its end. The mixture of radiation and scalar field can be described as an effective fluid with a well defined equation of state. In Section III a consistent gauge-invariant treatment is developed in which the connection between entropy perturbations and dissipation is established. The expressions for scalar adiabatic perturbations and its spectral index in WI are shown in Section IV. Section V is devoted to presenting two models in WI, both in the weak dissipation regime. In this case the entropy perturbations can be neglected, and an estimate of the magnitude of the dissipation term was obtained, together with other relevant parameters of the model, after taking into account the COBE data. Although the smallness of the dissipation, the temperature at the end of inflation was calculated and shown to be reasonable for a smooth transition to the radiation era. Finally, in Section VI we conclude and trace out some perspectives of the present work.

## II Dynamical aspects of warm inflation and the generalized slow-roll parameters

Berera and Fangberefang  considered flat FRW models endowed with interacting radiation and scalar field whose dynamics is governed by the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi }{3m_{pl}^2}\left(\rho _r+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )\right),$$
(1)
by the equation of motion of an homogeneous scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$ in the effective potential $`V(\varphi )`$

$$\ddot{\varphi }+(3H+\mathrm{\Gamma })\dot{\varphi }+V^{}[\varphi (t)]=0,$$
(2)
and by the $`1^{st}`$ Law of Thermodynamics

$$\dot{\rho }_r+4H\rho _r=\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }^2.$$
(3)
In these equations $`H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}`$ is the Hubble parameter, $`m_{pl}`$ is the Planck mass, dot and prime denote derivative with respect to the cosmological time $`t`$ and the scalar field, respectively; $`\rho _r`$ is the energy density of the radiation field. The friction term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is responsible for the decay of the scalar field into radiation.

Warm inflation is characterized by the accelerated growth of the scale factor driven by the potential term $`V(\varphi )`$ that dominates over other energy terms in Eq. (1). During this phase: (i) the Friedmann equation becomes

$$H^2\frac{8\pi }{3m_{pl}^2}V(\varphi );$$
(4)
(ii) the $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ term is neglected in Eq. (2), yielding

$$\dot{\varphi }\frac{V^{}(\varphi )}{3H+\mathrm{\Gamma }};$$
(5)
(iii) and finally, since the scalar field steadily decays into radiation, it is assumed that $`\dot{\rho _r}0`$, or equivalently,

$$\rho _r\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }^2}{4H}$$
(6)
The inflationary regime is more precisely characterized by the introduction of the slow roll parameters. For the present scenario the generalization of the usual slow-roll parameters is given by

$$ϵ_{wi}=\frac{3\dot{\varphi }^2+4\rho _r}{2(V(\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\rho _r)}=\frac{m_{pl}^2}{4\pi (1+\alpha )}\left(\frac{H^{}(\varphi )}{H(\varphi )}\right)^2\frac{1}{3(1+\alpha )}\frac{H^{}\rho _r^{}}{H^3}$$
(7)
and

$$\eta _{wi}=\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{H\dot{\varphi }}=\frac{m_{pl}^2}{4\pi (1+\alpha )}\frac{H^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )}{H(\varphi )}\frac{\alpha ^{}H}{(1+\alpha )H^{}}ϵ_{wi}\frac{1}{3(1+\alpha )H}\left(\frac{\rho _r^{}}{H}\right)^{},$$
(8)
where we have introduced $`\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{3H}`$ that can be either greater or less than the unity depending on the regime of strong or weak dissipation. Note that the above expressions are exact. The slow-roll phase is characterized by $`ϵ_{wi}1`$, as a consequence of $`V(\varphi )1/2\dot{\varphi }^2+\rho _r`$, which is necessary to validate Eq. (4), and by $`\eta _{wi}1`$ for the condition of neglecting the $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ term in Eq. (2). Besides these conditions we must require $`\rho _r^{}0`$ that stands for the quasi-stable production of radiation. During the slow-roll, these parameters can be expressed in terms of the usual slow-roll parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ of the super-cooled inflation as

$$ϵ_{wi}\frac{ϵ}{1+\alpha }$$
(9)
and

$$\eta _{wi}\frac{\eta }{1+\alpha }+\frac{\alpha ^{}H}{(1+\alpha )^2H^{}}ϵ,$$
(10)
where $`ϵ\frac{m_{pl}^2}{4\pi }\left(\frac{H^{}(\varphi )}{H(\varphi )}\right)^2`$ and $`\eta \frac{m_{pl}^2}{4\pi }\left(\frac{H^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )}{H(\varphi )}\right)`$ as usually definedparinflation .

The parameters $`ϵ_{wi}`$ and $`\eta _{wi}`$ are natural and direct generalizations of the parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ of the super-cooled inflation. In the absence of dissipation and radiation, the parameters defined in warm inflation reduce to the usual ones. Besides, the parameter $`ϵ_{wi}`$ can also be understood as a direct measure of the effective equation of state relating the total pressure $`p=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi )+p_r`$ and the total energy $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )+\rho _r`$ through $`p=\left(1\frac{2}{3}ϵ_{wi}\right)\rho `$. The definition of inflation as the period of accelerated expansion of the universe implies that $`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}>0`$, so that from the exact expression

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=(1ϵ_{wi})H^2$$
(11)
the inflationary epoch can be formally characterized by $`ϵ_{wi}<1`$. The end of inflation occurs for $`ϵ_{wi}=1`$, implying that, in this stage $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\rho _r`$ is comparable to the potential $`V(\varphi )`$, or equivalently $`\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\rho _r\right)_{end}=V(\varphi _e)`$ (see Eq. (7)), where $`\varphi _e`$ is the scalar field at the end of inflation. The condition $`\dot{\rho }_r0`$ is valid in most of inflation, but it is violated at the beginning and at the end of inflation, as well.

The crucial aspect of warm inflation is that the temperature of radiation, $`T_r`$, must exceed the Hawking temperature, $`H`$, or

$$T_rH,$$
(12)
during the inflationary expansion; the moment when $`T_r=H`$ is considered the beginning of warm inflation. This relation assures that thermal fluctuations of the scalar field dominate over the quantum fluctuations producing a distinct spectrum of primordial fluctuations from that of super-cooled inflationberefang ; leefang1 .

Finally, we derive a very useful expression for the number of e-folds $`N`$ associated to the scalar field. We set $`a=a_ee^{N(\varphi )}`$, where $`a_e=a(\varphi _e)`$, $`\varphi _e`$ are the values of the scale factor and the scalar field at the end of inflation, $`N`$ is the number of e-folds before the end of inflation. It can be easily found that, in the slow-roll approximation,

$$N=\pm \frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}_{\varphi _i}^{\varphi _e}(1+\alpha )\frac{H(\varphi )}{H^{}(\varphi )}𝑑\varphi $$
(13)
where the upper (lower) sign is used when $`\dot{\varphi }>0(<0)`$, so that $`N`$ is always a positive quantity. Since we know that warm inflation is characterized by the dominance of the thermal component of radiation, it begins when $`T_r=H`$ at $`\varphi =\varphi _{}`$, say. Then, denoting by $`N_{wi}`$ the number of e-folds during the warm inflation, we have

$$N_{wi}=\pm \frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}_\varphi _{}^{\varphi _e}(1+\alpha )\frac{H(\varphi )}{H^{}(\varphi )}𝑑\varphi .$$
(14)
In general, $`\varphi _{}\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ depends on the typical parameters of the theory.

## III Perturbations in warm inflation

We consider the inhomogeneous perturbations of the FRW background described by the metric in the longitudinal gaugeentropy ; bardeen

$$ds^2=(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })dt^2a^2(t)(12\mathrm{\Psi })\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(15)
where $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(t,𝐱)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(t,𝐱)`$ are the metric perturbations. The background matter content is constituted by radiation and scalar field interacting through the friction term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as shown in the last Section. The spatial dependence of all perturbed quantities are of the form of plane waves $`e^{i𝐤.𝐱}`$, $`k`$ being the wave number, so that the perturbed field equations regarding now only their temporal parts (we omit the subscript $`k`$) are

$`3H(H\mathrm{\Phi }+\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}){\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}}\delta \rho `$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+H\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3k}}\rho _rav+\dot{\varphi }_0\delta \varphi \right)`$ (16)
$`\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+4H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+(2\dot{H}+3H^2)\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}}\delta p.`$
In the above equations dot means derivative with respect to $`t`$, $`\rho _r`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are background energy density of radiation and the scalar field, respectively; $`\delta \rho =\delta \rho _r+\dot{\varphi _0}(\delta \varphi \dot{)}\dot{\varphi _0}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V^{}\delta \varphi `$ and $`\delta p=\frac{1}{3}\delta \rho _r+\dot{\varphi _0}(\delta \varphi \dot{)}\dot{\varphi _0}^2\mathrm{\Phi }V^{}\delta \varphi `$ are the perturbations of the total energy density and pressure, respectively; $`v`$ originates from the decomposition of the velocity field as $`\delta U_i=\frac{iak_i}{k}ve^{i𝐤.𝐱}`$ (see Bardeenbardeen ). Also, due the fact that the perturbation of the total energy-momentum tensor does not give rise to anisotropic stress ($`\delta T_j^i\delta _j^i`$), $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For the sake of completeness we present in the appendix the evolution equations for $`\delta \varphi `$, $`\delta \rho _r`$ and $`v`$.

We assume that $`\delta p`$ and $`\delta \rho `$ are connected by the relation

$$\delta p=c_s^2\delta \rho +\tau \delta S$$
(17)
where $`c_s^2=\frac{\dot{p}}{\dot{\rho }}=\frac{\dot{p}_r+\dot{p}_\varphi }{\dot{\rho }_r+\dot{\rho }_\varphi }`$ is the effective velocity of sound of the fluid constituted by the mixture of radiation and scalar field. The quantity $`\tau \delta S`$ is the contribution to the perturbation of the pressure due to the variation of the effective equation of state that relates $`p`$ and $`\rho `$, or the entropy perturbation. Introducing Eq. (17) into the third equation of the system (16), and taking into account the first equation, we obtain

$$\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+(4+3c_s^2)H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+[2\dot{H}+3H^2(1+c_s^2)]\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{c_s^2k^2}{a^2}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}\tau \delta S.$$
(18)
The rhs of the above equation accounts for the entropy perturbations. In the absence of such perturbations and for long wavelength perturbations, the gauge-invariant curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfacesentropy ; gordon

$$=\frac{2(H\mathrm{\Phi }+\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{3H(1+w)}+\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(19)
with $`w=\frac{p}{\rho }=\frac{p_r+p_\rho }{\rho _r+\rho _\varphi }`$, is conserved. In the absence of the scalar field $`c_s^2=w=\frac{1}{3}`$, $`\tau \delta S=0`$ (see also next expression). Writing $`\rho =\rho _r+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi _0)`$ and $`p=\frac{1}{3}\rho _r+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi _0)`$ in Eq. (17), yields

$$\tau \delta S=(1c_s^2)\delta \rho \frac{2}{3}\delta \rho _r2V^{}\delta \varphi $$
(20)
After some manipulation using the field equations (16), it results in

$$\tau \delta S=\frac{m_{pl}^2}{4\pi }(H\mathrm{\Phi }+\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})A\frac{m_{pl}^2(1c_s^2)}{4\pi a^2}k^2\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{2}{3}\rho _r\left(\frac{4aV^{}v}{k\dot{\varphi }_0}+\frac{\delta \rho _r}{\rho _r}\right)$$
(21)
where $`A`$ is given by

$$A=\frac{8\rho _r(H+V^{}/\dot{\varphi }_0)2\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }_0^2}{3(\dot{\varphi }_0^2+4/3\rho _r)}.$$
(22)
Assuming slow-roll conditions (4)-(6), it can be shown that $`A`$ is given by $`A2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, putting in evidence the role of dissipation in the entropy perturbations. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ the radiation field decays exponentially during inflation implying that it can be neglected, and therefore the entropy perturbation term is reduced to

$$\tau \delta S=\frac{m_{pl}^2(1c_s^2)}{4\pi }\frac{k^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{a^2}=\frac{m_{pl}^2V^{}}{6\pi H\dot{\varphi }_0}\frac{k^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{a^2},$$
(23)
which agrees with previous resultsgordon  obtained for a single scalar field, and that vanishes for long wavelength perturbations. In this way, the dissipation term plays a crucial role in producing entropy perturbations by preventing the radiation field field to be washed away during inflation. Therefore, during WI different matter components, scalar field and radiation, evolve such that eventually nonuniform spatial distributions but with uniform total energy density are present. This is, roughly speaking, the origin of the entropy perturbations.

Now, we can rewrite Eq. (19) a very useful form considering long wavelength perturbations. Using the comoving curvature perturbation $``$, we have

$$\dot{}=\frac{2(H\mathrm{\Phi }+\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }})A}{3H(1+w)}\frac{16\pi \rho _r}{9m_{pl}^2(1+w)H}\left(\frac{4aV^{}v}{k\dot{\varphi }_0}+\frac{\delta \rho _r}{\rho _r}\right)$$
(24)
which relates the change in the comoving curvature perturbation due to the source $`\tau \delta S`$. We can determine the dominant term of the rhs of the above equation during inflation (see appendix for details), that shows to be

$$\dot{}\frac{4\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }}{3(\rho +p)}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(25)
As expected from the previous discussion, the entropy perturbation depends directly on the dissipation term. For very small dissipation, which is still allowed in warm inflation, the source term in the above equation can be neglected and the adiabatic perturbations will be mostly responsible for the primordial spectrum of inhomogeneities. Independently of all approximations used it is intuitive that the dissipation may play a central role in producing entropy perturbations, since in the absence of dissipation the radiation field is washed away during inflation and its effect in the overall scenario can be neglected. We remark that our result is in agreement with Taylor and Bererataylor , although a gauge-invariant analysis were not carried out, and opposite to the one obtained by Wolung Lee and Fangleefang2 .

In the last section we will consider a small dissipation such that Eq. (25) can be reduced to $`\dot{}0`$, meaning that the entropy perturbations are no longer important and the primordial spectrum of perturbations is due only to adiabatic perturbations.

## IV Spectral index for scalar perturbations

Based on the final discussion of the last section the spectrum of scalar adiabatic perturbations is given by

$$\delta _{ad}\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho +p}=\frac{3H}{\dot{\varphi }_0}\delta \varphi .$$
(26)
This expression must be evaluated for $`k=aH`$, that is when a given scale $`k`$ crosses the Hubble radius. The fluctuations of the scalar field are now supposed to be of thermal origin instead of quantum fluctuations, or equivalentlyberefang ; leefang1

$$(\delta \varphi )^2\frac{3H}{4\pi }T_r$$
(27)
where $`T_r`$ is the temperature of the thermal bath. For quantum fluctuations we know that $`(\delta \varphi )_{quant}^2\frac{H^2}{4\pi }`$, so that the dominance of thermal fluctuations is guaranteed for $`T_r>H`$ which occurs during the warm inflation. Despite the small dissipation, the spectrum of perturbations will depend strongly on the dissipation as we can see after substituting Eq. (27) into Eq. (26), and taking into account that

$$T_r=\left(\frac{30}{g\pi ^2}\rho _r\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{15}{2\pi ^2g}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }_0^2}{H}\right)^{1/4}$$
(28)
which holds during the slow-roll, with $`g100`$ being the number of degrees of freedom for the radiation field. Then, we obtain

$$\delta _{ad}^237.19\left[\frac{\alpha ^{1/6}(1+\alpha )}{H^{}}\right]^{3/2}\left(\frac{H}{m_{pl}}\right)^3$$
(29)
It is also useful to describe this spectrum in terms of its spectral index, $`n_s`$, defined as

$$n_s1=\frac{dln\delta _{ad}^2}{dlnk}.$$
(30)
Using the usual assumptions (i) $`a=e^Na_e`$ (see Section II); (ii) the fact that $`k=aH`$ for a given scale crossing the Hubble radius, one can show that

$$\frac{dlnk}{d\varphi _0}=\frac{4\pi }{m_{pl}^2}\frac{H}{H^{}}(1+\alpha )(ϵ_{wi}1).$$
(31)
For $`\alpha =0`$, it follows that $`ϵ_{wi}=ϵ`$ and the expression established in super-cooled inflation is easily recoveredkolbdodel . Finally, considering Eqs. (29), (30) and (31) we found the following expression for $`n_s`$ in terms of the slow-roll parameters

$$n_s=1\frac{1}{2(1ϵ+\alpha )}\left(\frac{(11+5\alpha )ϵ}{2(1+\alpha )}3\eta \right)\frac{m_{pl}^2(1+7\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}H^{}}{48\pi \alpha (1+\alpha )(1ϵ+\alpha )H^2}$$
(32)
We remark that the above equation is general in the sense that no approximation regarding $`\alpha `$ was used, and there is a contribution of the variation of the dissipation term that can be relevant. For instance, let us consider the potential of the type $`V(\varphi )=\lambda ^4\varphi ^q`$, and a constant dissipation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. It follows that for $`\alpha 1`$, $`n_s1\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{11}{2}ϵ3\eta \right)`$, and for any $`q`$, $`n_s`$ is always less than one as in super-cooled inflation. On the other hand, if $`\alpha 1`$, $`n_s1\frac{1}{2\alpha }\left(\frac{5}{2}ϵ3\eta \right)`$, where one can easily show that only if $`q>12`$ the index $`n_s`$ can be greater than one giving rise to a blue spectrum. In the case of variable dissipation, we assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta _2\varphi ^2`$ and the corresponding expression for the index $`n_s`$ becomes $`n_s1\frac{1}{2(1+\alpha ϵ)}\left(\frac{(11q+4)+(5q+28)\alpha }{2q(1+\alpha )}ϵ3\eta \right)`$. In particular, if $`q=4`$ this expression is reduced to $`n_s1\frac{3}{2(1+\alpha ϵ)}(2ϵ\eta )`$ which is always less than 1.

## V Some worked examples

In order to estimate consistently the role of dissipation during the warm inflation, let us consider the potential

$$V(\varphi )=\lambda ^4\varphi ^4$$
(33)
where $`\lambda `$ is an adimensional parameter. According to ref. olivrud , the dissipation term can be written as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta _m\varphi ^m`$, $`m=0,2`$. For the sake of simplicity we set $`m=2`$ which yields

$$\alpha =\frac{m_{pl}\beta _2}{\sqrt{24\pi }\lambda ^2},$$
(34)
that is a constant, and $`[\beta ]=m_{pl}^1`$. During inflation Eq. (4) holds, and together with Eq. (5) the density of radiation given by Eq. (6) is

$$\rho _r\frac{m_{pl}^4\lambda ^4\alpha }{2\pi (1+\alpha )^2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{m_{pl}}\right)^2.$$
(35)
The end of inflation is achieved when $`ϵ_{wi}=1`$, or

$$\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\frac{1}{2\pi (1+\alpha )}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\alpha }}\right).$$
(36)
This expression is valid either for a regime of very strong ($`\alpha 1`$), or very weak dissipation ($`\alpha 1`$). For the first, we obtain $`\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha }`$, whereas for the second situation $`\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\frac{1}{\pi }`$ as in the super-cooled inflation. The beginning of warm inflation is indicated by $`\varphi =\varphi _{}`$ for which $`T_r=H`$. From Eqs. (4) and (28) it follows that

$$\left(\frac{\varphi _{}}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\left(\frac{2.7\alpha }{128\pi ^5(1+\alpha )^2\lambda ^4}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(37)
The next equation is

$$N_{wi}=\frac{\pi (1+\alpha )}{m_{pl}^2}(\varphi _{}^2\varphi _e^2)=60,$$
(38)
obtained with Eqs. (4) and (14) and express the fact that the total number of e-folds must be (at least) of the order of 60 to solve the usual problems mentioned in the introduction. These last two equations provide an important constraint between the free parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$.

According to the discussion of Section III, we assume a small dissipation ($`\alpha <1`$) such that we can neglect the contribution of the entropy perturbations and the adiabatic perturbations will be relevant for structure formation. However, we have no idea of how small actually $`\alpha `$ should be. A possible way of making an estimative of this parameter is to use the COBE-DMRcobe  observation of the cosmic microwave radiation anisotropy, which asserts for the temperature anisotropy $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T_0}\right)^23.43\times 10^{11}`$, with $`T_0=2.73K`$. Then, following the usual assumptionsturner  concerning the contribution of scalar perturbations to this measured quantity, we may have

$$\delta _{ad}^23.43\times 10^{11},$$
(39)
and this expression must be evaluated for a given scale crossing the Hubble radius 50 e-folds before the end of inflation. We also remark after determining the value of $`\alpha `$ we can verify if at the end of inflation there will be enough radiation necessary to the radiation era.

As in super-cooled inflation (see appendix) a scale of astrophysical interest crosses the Hubble radius at $`N_{wi}=50`$. Thus, $`\varphi _{50}`$ can be evaluated from Eq. (38), resulting

$$\left(\frac{\varphi _{50}}{m_{pl}}\right)^2=\frac{50}{\pi (1+\alpha )}+\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}\right)^2.$$
(40)
Now we are in conditions to determine the relevant parameters of the model, namely, $`\lambda `$, $`\alpha `$, $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _e`$. For this, we substitute Eqs. (33) and (34) into the expression for $`\delta _{ad}^2`$ (Eq. (29)), and evaluate it at 50 e-folds before the end of inflation through Eq. (40). Finally, the last equation is obtained when we take the observational data of COBE-DMR on the cosmic microwave background anisotropy given by (39).

Therefore, solving the system formed by Eqs. (36), (37), (38) and (39), we find

$`\alpha 1.04\times 10^9,\lambda ^40.97\times 10^{17}`$
$`\varphi _{}4.40m_{pl},\varphi _e0.56m_{pl}`$ (41)
The temperature at the end of inflation is evaluated from the amount of radiation at this epoch. Using the above parameters and Eq. (28), it is not difficult to arrive to the following temperature

$$T_{end}6.28\times 10^8m_{pl},$$
(42)
which is in good agreement with the temperature generated by reheating. These results are quite interesting. In Refs. olivrud ; leefang1  the dissipation term is constrained in such a way to produce at the end of inflation a hot universe, and consequently a smooth transition to the radiation era. In these works previous estimations of the ratio between dissipation and the Hubble parameter can be of order of $`10^7`$ or less. Here, by considering consistently the production of adiabatic perturbations and constraining the amplitude of its spectrum with COBE data, we arrive to similar results. Finally, the spectral index of scalar perturbations can be calculated directly from Eq. (32), yielding

$$n_s0.956$$
(43)
that is slightly close to one than the corresponding obtained for super-cooled inflation that is found to be 0.941.

In this second and last example we choose the quadratic potential $`V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$ and a constant dissipation term, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=constant`$. During inflation $`\alpha `$ is no longer constant given by

$$\alpha \frac{m_{pl}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m\varphi }.$$
(44)
The same steps adopted before will be followed straightforwardly in order to estimate the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`m`$ compatible with the assumption of small dissipation and the observational data. The radiation is assumed to be (see Eq. 4)

$$\rho _r\frac{\sqrt{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0mm_{pl}\varphi }{96\pi ^{3/2}}\left(\frac{\varphi }{m_{pl}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right)^2$$
(45)
from which the beginning of warm inflation can be calculated

$$\frac{2.7\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{16^2\pi ^5\sqrt{12\pi }m}\left(\frac{\varphi _{}}{m_{pl}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right)^2\left(\frac{m}{m_{pl}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\varphi _{}}{m_{pl}}\right)^3.$$
(46)
The end of inflation occurs when $`ϵ_{wi}=1`$ or

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{m_{pl}}{\varphi _e}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0m_{pl}^3}{128\sqrt{5}\pi ^{3/2}m\varphi _e^3}\frac{\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right)}{\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right)^3}\frac{m_{pl}}{\varphi _e}\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right).$$
(47)
The additional constraint comes from the imposition of $`N_{wi}=60`$. then, Eq. (14) for this case is

$$N_{wi}=2\pi \left[\left(\frac{\varphi _{}}{m_{pl}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right)^2\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{m_{pl}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{\sqrt{12\pi }m}\right)^2\right]=60$$
(48)
The expression for $`\varphi _{50}`$ is established form the above by setting $`N_{wi}=50`$.

The last step is to express properly the spectrum of scalar perturbations for this specific case in the same way as done before. Then, after a direct calculation, taken into account the expression for $`\varphi _{50}`$ and the observational constraint (Eq. (39)), we obtained

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_03.09\times 10^{16}m_{pl},m5.5\times 10^8m_{pl}`$
$`\varphi _{}3.09m_{pl},\varphi _e0.79m_{pl}`$ (49)
Despite the very tiny value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, it can be shown that, as in the last example, $`\alpha 10^9`$ during warm inflation. Finally, the temperature at the end of inflation is

$$T_{end}0.52\times 10^7m_{pl}$$
(50)
which again is acceptable. The spectral index for adiabatic perturbations is $`n_s0.972`$, whereas the corresponding for super-cooled inflation is $`n_s0.962`$.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we generalized the slow roll parameters applied in the usual super cooled inflation to the WI scenario. They are valid for any value of dissipation and can be used even if one wishes to allow time dependence of the energy density of radiation. Once we had well defined expansion parameters, we were able to study the evolution of the inflaton and radiation fields as well as of the entropy and adiabatic perturbations.

We showed that the entropy perturbation $`\delta S`$ is proportional to the dissipation in the system. Since WI is feasible even for small values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we assumed that $`\delta S`$ is negligible, and focused on the subsequent evolution of the adiabatic perturbations. The restrictions imposed upon them by the observational data worked as a consistency check — yielding small values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ — and provided the parameters (either $`\lambda `$ or $`m`$), final temperature and spectral index $`n_s`$ for the particular models chosen. Both presented a nearly scale-invariant spectrum, and temperatures comparable to the ones generated by the usual reheating mechanisms.

As next steps, we will check if different potentials broadly adopted in WI generate self-consistent pictures as above. We also intend to study the behavior of tensor perturbations in the same scenario.

## VII Acknowledgments

H. P. O. and S. E. J. acknowledge CNPq for financial support. We would like to thank Dr. Kolb and Scott Dodelson for useful discussions. S. E. J. thanks Robert Brandenberger for his comments. S. E. J. is supported in Part by D.O.E. Grant (DE-FG02-91ER40688 - Task A). Finally, we have appreciated the comments of A. Berera.

## Appendix A Evolution equations for $`\delta \varphi `$, $`\delta \rho _r`$ and $`v`$

The total energy momentum $`T_\nu ^\mu =T_{(r)\nu }^\mu +T_{(\varphi )\nu }^\mu `$, constituted by radiation and scalar field, is conserved, or $`T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$. However, radiation and scalar field are in interaction (cf. Eqs. (2) and (3)), whose covariant descriptionleefang2  is

$$T_{(r)\nu }^\mu {}_{;\mu }{}^{}=T_{(\varphi )\nu }^\mu {}_{;\mu }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _{,\alpha }U^\alpha )\varphi _{,\nu }$$
(51)
From the above equation we perturb the equation of energy balance of radiation and scalar field to derive the evolution laws for $`\delta \rho _r`$, $`\delta \varphi `$, respectively, and also after perturbing the equation of motion for the velocity field we obtain the evolution of $`\delta U_\alpha `$ and consequently $`v`$. The calculations are tedious but direct and result in

$`(\delta \rho _r\dot{)}+4H\delta \rho _r+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}ka\rho _rv=4\rho _r\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\dot{\varphi }_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\delta \varphi +\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }_0(2(\delta \varphi \dot{)}3\dot{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`(\delta \varphi \ddot{)}+(3H+\mathrm{\Gamma })(\delta \varphi \dot{)}+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}+V^{\prime \prime }+\dot{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})\delta \varphi =4\dot{\varphi }_0\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+(\dot{\varphi }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }2V^{})\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (52)
$`\dot{v}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }_0^2}{\rho _r}}v+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _r}{4\rho _r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }_0}{4\rho _r}}\delta \varphi \right)=0`$
In order to obtain the leading term of the rhs of Eq. (24), we follow the approximation used in ref. plastaro . Basically, it consists in neglecting $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`(\delta \varphi \ddot{)}`$ during inflation, and in addition we also neglect $`\dot{v}`$. Taking into account these approximations in the Eq. (24), we arrive to the following relation

$$\dot{}\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho }{3(\rho +p)}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{3\sqrt{\pi ϵ}}{2}\frac{\delta \varphi }{m_{pl}}\frac{ϵ}{12(1+\alpha )}\left[3\mathrm{\Phi }+\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{1+\alpha }\right)\frac{\delta \rho _r}{\rho _r}\right]\right\}.$$
(53)
Since during inflation we can set $`ϵ1`$, we may approximate the above equation as given by Eq. (24). Nonetheless, even with a more rigorous calculation it becomes clear that the entropy perturbations depends directly on the dissipation.

## Appendix B Matching equation in warm inflation

The matching equation in warm inflation is easily obtained using the same reasoning of standard super-cooled inflation. Then, a comoving scale $`k`$ whose length $`\lambda =\frac{1}{k}`$ crosses the Hubble radius $`H^1`$ during inflation when $`a_k\lambda _k=H^1`$. The matching equation relates $`k`$ (or $`\lambda `$) with $`N(k)`$, the corresponding value of the number of e-folds before the end of inflation that this scale crosses the Hubble radius. We can write

$$\frac{k}{k_{today}}=\frac{a_kH_k}{a_{today}H_{today}}=\frac{a_k}{a_{end}}\frac{a_{end}}{a_{today}}\frac{H_k}{H_{today}}$$
(54)
where the subscript ‘today’ indicates the present values of the quantity and $`a_{end}`$ is the scale factor at the end of inflation. Now, $`a_k=a_{end}e^{N(k)}`$. Note above that there is no reference to reheating. As usual we assume adiabatic expansion since the end of inflation that implies $`\frac{a_{end}}{a_{today}}\frac{2.73K}{T_{end}}`$, where $`T_{end}`$ is the temperature at the end of inflation, and its value is the same of the temperature generated at the reheating. After some direct calculation we arrive at

$$N(k)=62ln\left(\frac{k}{a_{today}H_{today}}\right)\frac{1}{4}ln\left(\frac{\rho _{end}}{V_k}\right)ln\left(\frac{10^{16}GeV}{V_k^{1/4}}\right)$$
(55)
where $`T_{end}=\rho _{end}^{1/4}`$. Now, the scales of astrophysical interest today, say the size of a galaxy $`\lambda Mpc`$ crosses, up to logarithm corrections, the outside the Hubble radius at $`N_{gal}624ln1050`$, where $`H_{today}^110^4Mpc`$ and $`a_{today}=1`$.


format: text

text:
# Constraint propagation in the family of ADM systems

## I Introduction

The effort to solve the Einstein equations numerically – so-called Numerical Relativity – is now providing an interesting bridge between mathematical relativists and numerical relativists. Most of the simulations have been performed using the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) formulation or a modified version. However, the ADM formulation has not been proven to be a well-posed system, since its evolution equations do not present a hyperbolic form in its original/standard formulation.

Most simulations are performed using the “free evolution” procedures: (1) solve the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints to prepare the initial data, (2) integrate the evolution equations by fixing gauge conditions, and (3) monitor the accuracy/stability by evaluating the constraints. Many trials have been made in the last few decades, but we have not yet obtained a perfect recipe for long-term stable evolution of the Einstein equations. Here we consider the problem through the form of the equations.

One direction in the community is to rewrite the Einstein evolution equations into a hyperbolic form and to apply it to numerical simulations . This is motivated by the fact that we can prove well-posedness for the evolution of several systems if they have a certain kind of hyperbolic feature. The authors recently derived  three levels of hyperbolic system of the Einstein equations using Ashtekar’s connection variables ***We derived weakly, strongly ($`=`$ diagonalizable) and symmetric hyperbolic systems. The mathematical inclusion relation is weakly hyperbolic $``$ strongly hyperbolic $``$ symmetric hyperbolic. See details in . , and compared them numerically . We found that (a) the three levels of hyperbolicity can be obtained by adding constraint terms and/or imposing gauge conditions, (b) there is no drastic difference in the accuracy of numerical evolutions in these three, and (c) the symmetric hyperbolic system is not always the best for reducing numerical errors. Similar results regarding to (a) and (b) are reported by Hern  based on the Frittelli-Reula formulation .

What are, then, the criteria for predicting the stable evolutions of a system? Inspired by the “$`\lambda `$-system” proposal , we have considered a so-called “asymptotically constrained” system, that is, a system robust against the violation of the constraints . The fundamental idea of the “$`\lambda `$-system” is to introduce artificial flow onto the constraint surface. However, we also found that such a feature can be obtained simply by adding constraint terms to the evolution equations which we named “adjusted systems” . We explained the reason why this works by analyzing the evolution equations of the constraints (the propagation of the constraints). We proposed that the stablity of the system can be predicted by analyzing the eigenvalues (amplification factors) of the constraint propagation equations (We describe this in detail in §II). We confirmed that our proposal works both in Maxwell and Ashtekar systems .

The purpose of this article is to apply our proposal to the ADM system(s). Especially, we consider the “adjusting process” (adding constraints in RHS of evolution equations), and the resultant changes to the eigenvalues of the constraint propagation systems. This adjusting process can be seen in many constructions of hyperbolic systems in the references. In fact, the standard ADM for numerical relativists is the version which was introduced by York , where the original ADM system  has already been adjusted using the Hamiltonian constraint (see more detail in §III). The advantage of the standard ADM system is reported by Frittelli from the point of the hyperbolicity and the characteristic propagation speed of the constraints. Our discussion extends her analysis to the amplification factors.

One early effort of the adjusting mechanism was presented by Detweiler. Our study also includes his system, and shows that this system actually works as desired for a certain choice of parameter (§IV). We also study the same procedure for the “conformal-traceless” ADM (CT-ADM) formulations  which is recently the most popular system in numerical simulations (§V).

The analysis in the text is for perturbational violation on a flat background. Further applications are available, but we will discuss them in future reports. In the Appendix, we also give numerical demonstrations of the adjusted-ADM systems discussed in the text.

## II Constraint propagation and “adjusted system”

We begin by reviewing the background of “adjusted systems” and our conjecture.

The notion of the evolution equations of the constraints is often discussed from the point of whether they form a first class system or not. Fortunately, the constraints in the (original/standard) ADM formulation are known to form a first class system. Due to this fact, numerical relativists only need to monitor the violation of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints during the free evolution of the initial data.

Our essential idea here is to feed this procedure back into the evolution equations. That is, we adjust the system’s evolution equations by characterizing the constraint propagation in advance. Let us describe the procedure in a general form. Suppose we have a set of dynamical variables, $`u^a(x^i,t)`$, and its evolution equations,

$$_tu^a=f(u^a,_iu^a,\mathrm{}),$$
(1)
which should satisfy a set of constraints, $`C^\rho (u^a,_iu^a,\mathrm{})0`$. The evolution equation for $`C^a`$ can be written as

$$_tC^\rho =g(C^\rho ,_iC^\rho ,\mathrm{}).$$
(2)
We can perform two main types of analysis analysis on (2):

1. If (2) is in a first order form (that is, only includes first-order spatial derivatives), then the level of hyperbolicity and the characteristic speeds (eigenvalues $`\lambda ^l`$ of the principal matrix) will definitely deterine the stability of the system. We expect mathematically rigorous well-posed features for strongly or symmetric hyperbolic systems, and the characteristic speeds suggest to us satisfactory criteria for stable evolutions if they are real, and under the propagation speed of the original variables, $`u^a`$, and/or within the causal region of the numerical integration scheme applied.
2. On the other hand, the Fourier transformed-(2),

$$_t\widehat{C}^\rho =\widehat{g}(\widehat{C}^\rho ),$$
(3)
where $`C^\rho (x,t)=\widehat{C}^\rho (k,t)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)d^3k,`$ also characterizes the evolution of the constraints independently of its hyperbolicity. As we have proposed and confirmed in , the set of eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$ of the coefficient matrix in (3) provides a kind of amplification factor of the constraint propagation, and predicts the increase/decrease of the violation of the constraints if it exists. More precisely, we showed in  that

* if the eigenvalues of (3) (a) have a negative real-part, or (b) are non-zero (pure-imaginary) eigenvalues, then we see more stable evolutions than a system which does not.

This is because the constraints are damped if the eigenvalues are negative, and are propagating away if the eigenvalues are pure imaginary. We found heuristically that the system becomes more stable (accurate) when as much $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s satisfies the above criteria and/or as large magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s away from zeros. (Examples in  are of the plane wave propagation in the Maxwell system and the Ashtekar system.) We remark that this eigenvalue analysis requires that we fix a particular background metric for the situation we consider, since the amplification factor depends on the dynamical variables $`u^a`$.

The above features of the constraint propagation, (2), will change when we modify the original evolution equations. Suppose we adjust the RHS of (1) by adding the constraints,

$$_tu^a=f(u^a,_iu^a,\mathrm{})+F(C^\rho ,_iC^\rho ,\mathrm{}),$$
(4)
then (2) will also be modified as

$$_tC^\rho =g(C^\rho ,_iC^\rho ,\mathrm{})+G(C^\rho ,_iC^\rho ,\mathrm{}).$$
(5)
By taking the characteristic speed of (5) and the amplification factor of the Fourier transformed-(5), the predicted stability of the system (4) becomes different to that of the original system, (2).

Our proposed “adjusted system” is obtained by finding a certain functional form of $`F(C^\rho ,_iC^\rho ,\mathrm{})`$ in (4) so as to get a more stable prediction in the analysis of the eigenvalues $`\lambda ^l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$. In the following discussion, we show two eigenvalues $`\lambda ^l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$ for each ADM system. We remark again that the term ‘characteristic speed’ here is not for the dynamical equation (1), but for the constraint propagation equations (2).

## III Standard ADM system

### A Standard ADM system and its constraint propagation

We start by analyzing the standard ADM system. By “standard ADM” we mean here the most widely adopted system, due to York , with evolution equations

$`_t\gamma _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha K_{ij}+_i\beta _j+_j\beta _i,`$ (6)
$`_tK_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha R_{ij}^{(3)}+\alpha KK_{ij}2\alpha K_{ik}K_{}^{k}{}_{j}{}^{}_i_j\alpha +(_i\beta ^k)K_{kj}+(_j\beta ^k)K_{ki}+\beta ^k_kK_{ij},`$ (7)
and constraint equations

$``$ $`:=`$ $`R^{(3)}+K^2K_{ij}K^{ij},`$ (8)
$`_i`$ $`:=`$ $`_jK_{}^{j}{}_{i}{}^{}_iK,`$ (9)
where $`(\gamma _{ij},K_{ij})`$ are the induced three-metric and the extrinsic curvature, $`(\alpha ,\beta _i)`$ are the lapse function and the shift covector, $`_i`$ is the covariant derivative adapted to $`\gamma _{ij}`$, and $`R_{ij}^{(3)}`$ is the three-Ricci tensor.

The constraint propagation equations, which are the time evolution equations of the Hamiltonian constraint (8) and the momentum constraints (9), can be written as

$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^j(_j)2\alpha \gamma ^{ij}(_i_j)+2\alpha K+\alpha (_l\gamma _{mk})(2\gamma ^{ml}\gamma ^{kj}\gamma ^{mk}\gamma ^{lj})_j4\gamma ^{ij}(_j\alpha )_i,`$ (10)
$`_t_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)\alpha (_i)+\beta ^j(_j_i)+\alpha K_i(_i\alpha )\beta ^k\gamma ^{jl}(_i\gamma _{lk})_j+(_i\beta _k)\gamma ^{kj}_j.`$ (11)
The simplest derivation of (10) and (11) is by using the Bianchi identity, which can be seen in Frittelli . (Note that $`C`$ in  is half our $``$, and we have corrected typos in eq.(11) in ).

The characteristic part of (10) and (11) can be extracted as

$$_t\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta ^l& 2\alpha \gamma ^{il}\\ (1/2)\alpha \delta _i^l& \beta ^l\delta _i^j\end{array}\right)_l\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _j\end{array}\right)=:P^l_l\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _j\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
which indicates that the characteristic speeds (eigenvalues of the characteristic matrix, $`P^l`$) are

$`\lambda ^l`$ $`=`$ $`(\beta ^l,\beta ^l,\beta ^l\pm \alpha \sqrt{\gamma ^{ll}})(\text{no sum over }l).`$ (13)
Since $`\text{rank}(P^l\beta ^l)=2`$, the matrix $`P^l`$ is diagonalizable, but not the symmetric.

Simply by inserting (1/2) in front of $``$ above, we obtain

$$_t\left(\begin{array}{c}/2\\ _i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta ^l& \alpha \gamma ^{il}\\ \alpha \delta _i^l& \beta ^l\delta _i^j\end{array}\right)_l\left(\begin{array}{c}/2\\ _j\end{array}\right);$$
(14)
the characteristic matrix becomes symmetric (with the same eigenvalues). This is a feature of the standard ADM system that was pointed out by Frittelli. (Actually $`/2`$ is the form originally given by the Lagrangian formulation.)

### B Amplification factors on the Minkowskii background

As a first example, we consider the perturbation of the Minkowskii spacetime: $`\alpha =1`$, $`\beta ^i=0`$, $`\gamma _{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$. By taking the linear order contribution, (10) and (11) are reduced to

$`_t\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2ik_j\\ (1/2)ik_i& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{j}^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (15)
in Fourier components. The eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix of (15), which we call amplification factors, become

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=(0,0,\pm i\sqrt{k^2}),$$
(16)
where $`k^2=k_x^2+k_y^2+k_z^2`$. These factors will be compared with others later, but we note that the real parts of all the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s are zero.

## IV Adjusted ADM systems

### A Adjustments

Generally, we can write the adjustment terms to (6) and (7) using (8) and (9) by the following combinations (using up to the first derivative of constraints),

$`\text{adjustment term of }_t\gamma _{ij}:`$ $`+P_{ij}+Q^k{}_{ij}{}^{}_{k}^{}+p^k{}_{ij}{}^{}(D_k)+q^{kl}{}_{ij}{}^{}(D_k_l),`$ (17)
$`\text{adjustment term of}_tK_{ij}:`$ $`+R_{ij}+S^k{}_{ij}{}^{}_{k}^{}+r^k{}_{ij}{}^{}(D_k)+s^{kl}{}_{ij}{}^{}(D_k_l),`$ (18)
where $`P,Q,R,S`$ and $`p,q,r,s`$ are multipliers (please do not confuse $`R_{ij}`$ with three Ricci curvature that we write as $`R_{ij}^{(3)}`$). Since this expression is too general, we mention some restricted cases below.

We remark that our starting system, (6) and (7), is the standard ADM system for numerical relativists introduced by York . This expression can be obtained from the originally formulated canonical expression by ADM , but in that process the Hamiltonian constraint equation is used to eliiminate the three dimensional Ricci scalar. Therefore the standard ADM is already adjusted from the original ADM system. We start our comparison with this point.

### B Original ADM vs Standard ADM

Frittelli’s adjustment analysis  can be written in terms of (17) and (18), as

$`R_{ij}=(1/4)(\mu 1)\alpha \gamma _{ij},`$ (19)
where $`\mu `$ is a constant and set other multiplier zero. Here $`\mu =1`$ corresponds to the standard ADM (no adjustment, since $`R_{ij}=0`$), and $`\mu =0`$ to the original ADM (without any adjustment to the canonical formulation by ADM).

Keeping the multiplier (19) in mind, we here discuss the case of non-zero $`R_{ij},S^k_{ij}`$ (and all other multipliers zero) case. The constraint propagation equations become

$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^j(_j)2\alpha \gamma ^{ij}(_i_j)+2\alpha K+\alpha (_l\gamma _{mk})(2\gamma ^{ml}\gamma ^{kj}\gamma ^{mk}\gamma ^{lj})_j4\gamma ^{ij}(_j\alpha )_i`$ (21)
$`+2KR2K^{ij}R_{ij}+2K\gamma ^{ij}S^k{}_{ij}{}^{}_{k}^{}2K^{ij}S^k{}_{ij}{}^{}_{k}^{},`$
$`_t_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)\alpha (_i)+\beta ^j(_j_i)+\alpha K_i(_i\alpha )\beta ^k\gamma ^{jl}(_i\gamma _{lk})_j+(_i\beta _k)\gamma ^{kj}_j`$ (26)
$`+\gamma ^{kj}(_jR_{ki})\gamma ^{jk}(_iR_{jk})+R^j{}_{i}{}^{}(_j)R_{jk}\gamma ^{jk}(_i)`$
$`+\gamma ^{lj}(_jS^k{}_{li}{}^{})_k\gamma ^{jl}(_iS^k{}_{jl}{}^{})_k+S^{kj}{}_{i}{}^{}(_j_k)\gamma ^{jl}S^k{}_{jl}{}^{}(_i_k)`$
$`+(_j\gamma ^{kj})R_{ki}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^jR^k{}_{i}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}^kR^j{}_{k}{}^{}(_i\gamma ^{jk})R_{jk}`$
$`+(_j\gamma ^{lj})S^k{}_{li}{}^{}_{k}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^jS^{kl}{}_{i}{}^{}_{k}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}^lS^{kj}{}_{l}{}^{}_{k}^{}(_i\gamma ^{jl})S^k{}_{jl}{}^{}_{k}^{},`$
that is, (21) and (26) form a first-order system. The principal part can be written as

$`_t\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _i\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\beta ^l& 2\alpha \gamma ^{jl}\\ (1/2)\alpha \delta _i^l+R^l{}_{i}{}^{}\delta _i^lR_{km}\gamma ^{km}& \beta ^l\delta _i^j+S^{jl}{}_{i}{}^{}\gamma ^{mk}\delta _i^lS^j_{mk}\end{array}\right)_l\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _j\end{array}\right).`$ (27)
The general discussion of the hyperbolicity and characteristic speed of the system (27) is hard, so hereafter we restrict ourselves to the case

$`R_{ij}=\kappa _1\alpha \gamma _{ij},S^k{}_{ij}{}^{}=\kappa _2\beta ^k\gamma _{ij},`$ (28)
where we recover (19) by choosing $`\kappa _1=(\mu 1)/4`$ and $`\kappa _2=0`$. The eigenvalues of (27) then become

$`\lambda ^l`$ $`=`$ $`(\beta ^l,\beta ^l,(1\kappa _2)\beta ^l\pm \sqrt{\alpha ^2\gamma ^{ll}(1+4\kappa _1)+(\kappa _2\beta ^l)^2})(\text{no sum over }l)`$ (29)
and the hyperbolicity of (27) can be classified as (i) symmetric hyperbolic when $`\kappa _1=3/2`$ and $`\kappa _2=0`$, (ii) strongly hyperbolic when $`\alpha ^2\gamma ^{ll}(1+4\kappa _1)+\kappa _2^2(\beta ^l)^2>0`$ where $`\kappa _11/4`$, and (iii) weakly hyperbolic when $`\alpha ^2\gamma ^{ll}(1+4\kappa _1)+\kappa _2^2(\beta ^l)^20`$.

For the case of (28) on a Minkowskii background metric, the linear order terms of the constraint propagation equations become

$`_l\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2ik_j\\ (1/2)(1+4\kappa _1)ik_i& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{j}^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (30)
whose Fourier transform gives the eigenvalues

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=(0,0,\pm \sqrt{k^2(1+4\kappa _1)}).`$ (31)
That is (two 0s, two pure imaginary) for the standard ADM, and (four 0s) for the original ADM system. Therefore, according to our conjecture, the standard ADM system is expected to have better stability than the original ADM system.

### C Detweiler’s system

#### 1 Detweiler’s system and its constraint amplification

Detweiler’s modification to ADM can be realized through one choice of the multipliers in (17) and (18). He found that with a particular combination the evolution of the energy norm of the constraints, $`^2+^2`$, can be negative definite when we apply the maximal slicing condition, $`K=0`$. (We will comment more on his criteria in §IV C 2.) His adjustment can be written in our notation in (17) and (18), as

$`P_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`L\alpha ^3\gamma _{ij},`$ (32)
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`L\alpha ^3(K_{ij}(1/3)K\gamma _{ij}),`$ (33)
$`S^k_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`L\alpha ^2[3(_{(i}\alpha )\delta _{j)}^k(_l\alpha )\gamma _{ij}\gamma ^{kl}],`$ (34)
$`s^{kl}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`L\alpha ^3[\delta _{(i}^k\delta _{j)}^l(1/3)\gamma _{ij}\gamma ^{kl}],`$ (35)
everything else zero, where $`L`$ is a constant. Detweiler’s adjustment, (33)-(35), does not put constraint propagation equation to first order form, so we can not discuss hyperbolicity or the characteristic speed of the constraints.

For the Minkowskii background spacetime, the adjusted constraint propagation equations with above choice of multiplier become

$`_l\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2Lk^2& 2ik_j\\ (1/2)ik_i& (L/2)k^2\delta _i^j(L/6)k_ik_j\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{j}^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (36)
The eigenvalues of the Fourier transform are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=((L/2)k^2,(L/2)k^2,(4L/3)k^2\pm \sqrt{k^2(1+(4/9)L^2k^2)}).$$
(37)
This indicates negative real eigenvalues if we choose small positive $`L`$.

We confirmed numerically, using perturbation on Minkowskii, that Detweiler’s system presents better accuracy than the standard ADM, but only for small positive $`L`$. See the Appendix.

#### 2 Differences with Detweiler’s requirement

We comment here on the differences between Detweiler’s criteria for stable evolution and ours.

Detweiler calculated the L2 norm of the constraints, $`C_\rho `$, over the 3-hypersurface and imposed the negative definiteness of its evolution,

$$\text{Detweiler’s criteria}_tC_\rho C^\rho 𝑑V<0,\text{ non zero }C_\rho .$$
(38)
where $`C_\rho C^\rho =:G^{\rho \sigma }C_\rho C_\sigma `$, and $`G_{\rho \sigma }=diag[1,\gamma _{ij}]`$ for the pair of $`C_\rho =(,_i)`$.

Assuming the constraint propagation to be $`_t\widehat{C}_\rho =A_\rho {}_{}{}^{\sigma }\widehat{C}_{\sigma }^{}`$ in the Fourier components, the time derivative of the L2 norm can be written as

$$_t(\widehat{C}_\rho \widehat{C}^\rho )=(A^{\rho \sigma }+\overline{A}^{\sigma \rho }+_t\overline{G}^{\rho \sigma })\widehat{C}_\rho \overline{\widehat{C}}_\sigma .$$
(39)
Together with the fact that the L2 norm is preserved by Fourier transform, we can say, for the case of static background metric,

$$\text{Detweiler’s criteria}\text{eigenvalues of }(A+A^{})\text{ are all negative}k.$$
(40)
On the other hand,

$$\text{Our criteria}\text{eigenvalues of }A\text{ are all negative}k.$$
(41)
Therefore for the case of static background, Detweiler’s criterion is stronger than ours. For example, the matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& a\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\text{ where }a\text{ is constant,}$$
(42)
for the evolution system $`(\widehat{C}_1,\widehat{C}_2)`$ satisfies our criterion but not Detweiler’s when $`|a|\sqrt{2}`$. This matrix however gives asymptotical decay for $`(\widehat{C}_1,\widehat{C}_2)`$. Therefore we may say that Detweiler requires the monotonic decay of the constraints, while we assume only asymptotical decay.

We remark that Detweiler’s truncations on higher order terms in $`C`$-norm corresponds to our perturbational analysis; both are based on the idea that the deviations from constraint surface (the errors expressed non-zero constraint value) are initially small.

### D Another possible adjustment

#### 1 Simplified Detweiler system

Similar to Detweiler’s (32), we next consider only the adjustment

$$P_{ij}=\kappa _0\alpha \gamma _{ij},$$
(43)
all other multipliers zero in (17) and (18).

On the Minkowskii background, the Fourier components of the constraint propagation equation can be written as

$$_t\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\kappa _0k^2& 2ik_j\\ (1/2)ik_i& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{j}^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(44)
and the eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=(0,0,\kappa _0k^2\pm \sqrt{k^2(1+\kappa _0^2k^2)}).$$
(45)
That is, the amplification factors become (0, 0, two negative reals) for the choice of relatively small negative $`\kappa _0`$.

We also confirmed that this system works as desired. We give a numerical example in the Appendix.

#### 2 Adjusting-Hamiltonian-constraints system

Our final example is a combination of the one in §IV B and that above, that is

$`P_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _0\alpha \gamma _{ij},`$ (46)
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _1\alpha \gamma _{ij},`$ (47)
all other multipliers zero in (17) and (18). Similar to the previous one, the Fourier transformed constraint propagation equation is

$$_t\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\kappa _0k^2& 2ik_i\\ (1/2)ik_i2\kappa _1ik_i& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{j}^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(48)
which gives the eigenvalues

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=(0,0,\kappa _0k^2\pm \sqrt{k^2(1+\kappa _0k^24\kappa _1)}).$$
(49)
We can expect a similar asymptotical stable evolution by choosing $`\kappa _0`$ and $`\kappa _1`$, so as to make the eigenvalues (0, 0, two negative reals).

## V Conformal-traceless ADM systems

The so-called “conformally decoupled traceless ADM formulation” (CT-ADM) was first developed by the Kyoto group . After the re-discovery that this formulation is more stable than the standard ADM by Baumgarte and Shapiro , several groups began to use CT-ADM formulation for their numerical codes, and reported an advantage in stability . Along with this conformal decomposition, several hyperbolic formulations have also been proposed , but they have not yet been applied to numerical simulations.

However, it is not yet clear why CT-ADM gives better stability than ADM. The Potsdam group  found that the eigenvalues of CT-ADM evolution equations has fewer “zero eigenvalues” than those of ADM, and they conjectured that the instability can be caused by “zero eigenvalues” that violate “gauge mode”. Miller  applied von Neumann’s stability analysis to the plane wave propagation, and reported that CT-ADM has a wider range of parameters that give us stable evolutions. These studies provide supports of CT-ADM in some sense, but on the other hand, it is also shown that an example of an ill-posed solution in CT-ADM (as well in ADM) .

Here, we apply our constraint propagation analysis to this CT-ADM system.

### A CT-ADM equations

Since one reported feature of CT-ADM is the use of the momentum constraint in RHS of the evolution equations , we here present the set of CT-ADM equations carefully for such an replacement of the constraint terms.

The widely used notation is to use the variables ($`\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}`$,$`K`$,$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i`$) instead of the standard ADM ($`\gamma _{ij}`$,$`K_{ij}`$), where

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{4\varphi }\gamma _{ij},`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{4\varphi }(K_{ij}(1/3)\gamma _{ij}K),`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{jk},`$ (52)
and we impose $`\mathrm{det}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}=1`$ during the evolutions. The set of evolution equations become

$`(_t_\beta )\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(1/6)\alpha K,`$ (53)
$`(_t_\beta )\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}_{ij},`$ (54)
$`(_t_\beta )K`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (1\kappa _1)R^{(3)}+\alpha (1\kappa _1)K^2+\alpha \kappa _1\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{A}^{ij}+(1/3)\alpha \kappa _1K^2\gamma ^{ij}(_i_j\alpha ),`$ (55)
$`(_t_\beta )\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{4\varphi }(_i_j\alpha )^{TF}+e^{4\varphi }\alpha R_{ij}^{(3)}e^{4\varphi }\alpha (1/3)\gamma _{ij}(1\kappa _3)R^{(3)}+\alpha (K\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ik}\stackrel{~}{A}^k{}_{j}{}^{})`$ (57)
$`+e^{4\varphi }\alpha (1/3)\gamma _{ij}\kappa _3[\stackrel{~}{A}_{kl}\stackrel{~}{A}^{kl}+(2/3)K^2],`$
$`_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i`$ $`=`$ $`2(_j\alpha )\stackrel{~}{A}^{ij}(4/3)\kappa _2\alpha (_jK)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}+12\kappa _2\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^{ji}(_j\varphi )2\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}_k{}_{}{}^{j}(_j\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ik})2\kappa _2\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^k{}_{lj}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}_{}^{j}{}_{k}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{}^{il}`$ (60)
$`2(1\kappa _2)\alpha (_j\stackrel{~}{A}_{kl})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ik}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{jl}+2\alpha (1\kappa _2)\stackrel{~}{A}^i{}_{j}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{}^{j}`$
$`_j\left(\beta ^k_k\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{kj}(_k\beta ^i)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ki}(_k\beta ^j)+(2/3)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}(_k\beta ^k)\right)`$
where $`_\beta `$ is the Lie derivative along the shift vector $`\beta ^i`$, and $`R^{(3)}`$ is the 3-metric scalar curvature. Here we introduced parameters $`\kappa `$ which show where we replace the terms with constraints. For example $`(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\kappa _3)=(0,0,0)`$ is the case of no replacement (the standard ADM equations expressed using (50)-(52)), while Baumgarte-Shapiro  uses $`(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\kappa _3)=(1,1,0)`$.

The constraint equations in CT-ADM system can be expressed as

$``$ $`=`$ $`e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{R}^{(3)}8e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}(_i_j\varphi )8e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}(_i\varphi )(_j\varphi )+8e^{4\varphi }(_i\varphi )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i+(2/3)K^2\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{A}^{ij},`$ (61)
$`_i`$ $`=`$ $`(_j\stackrel{~}{A}_{ki})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{kj}(2/3)(_iK)\stackrel{~}{A}_{ji}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^j+6(_j\varphi )\stackrel{~}{A}^j{}_{i}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ji}^k\stackrel{~}{A}^j{}_{k}{}^{},`$ (62)
$`𝒢^i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^i+_j\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ji}.`$ (63)
Here $`,`$ are the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints and the third one, $`𝒢`$, is a consistency relation due to the algebraic definition of (52).

### B Constraint propagation equations of CT-ADM

Similar to the ADM cases, we here show the propagation equations for (61)-(63). The expressions are given using (10) and (11), but we have to be careful to keep using the new variable, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, wherever it appears. Following , we express $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^{(3)}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{lm}(_l_m\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij})+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ki}_j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^k+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{kj}_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^k+(1/2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{(ij)k}`$ (65)
$`+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{lm}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{li}^k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jkm}+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{lm}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{lj}^k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ikm}+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{lm}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{im}^k\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{klj}.`$
The constraint propagation equations, then, are obtained by straightforward calculations as

$`_t`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^j(_j)2\alpha e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}(_i_j)+2\alpha K2\alpha e^{4\varphi }(_i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij})_j4\alpha e^{4\varphi }(_i\varphi )\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}_j4e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}(_j\alpha )_i`$ (68)
$`+2\kappa _2e^{4\varphi }(_i\alpha )\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}_j+2\kappa _2e^{4\varphi }\alpha (_i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij})_j+2\kappa _2e^{4\varphi }\alpha \stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}(_i_j)`$
$`+16\kappa _2\alpha e^{4\varphi }(_i\varphi )\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}_j(4/3)\kappa _1\alpha K,`$
$`_t_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)\alpha (_i)+\beta ^j(_j_i)+\alpha K_i(_i\alpha )4\beta ^j(_i\varphi )_j+\beta ^k\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{jl}(_i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{lk})_j+(_i\beta _k)e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{kj}_j`$ (70)
$`+(1/3)(2\kappa _1+\kappa _3)(_i\alpha )+(1/3)(2\kappa _1+\kappa _3)\alpha (_i)2\kappa _2\alpha \stackrel{~}{A}^j{}_{i}{}^{}_{j}^{}(1/3)\kappa _3\alpha 𝒢^j\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ji}+2\kappa _3\alpha (_i\varphi ),`$
$`_t𝒢^i`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{A}^i{}_{j}{}^{}𝒢_{}^{j}+2\kappa _2\alpha \stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ij}_j.`$ (71)
These form a first order system, and the characteristic part can be extracted as

$`_t\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _i\\ 𝒢^i\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\beta ^l& 2(1+\kappa _2)\alpha \gamma ^{lj}& 0\\ ((2/3)\kappa _1+(1/3)\kappa _3(1/2))\alpha \delta _i^l& \beta ^l\delta _i^j& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)_l\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ _j\\ 𝒢^j\end{array}\right),`$ (72)
whose characteristic speeds are

$`\lambda ^l`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,\beta ^l,\beta ^l,\beta ^l\pm \alpha \sqrt{\gamma ^{ll}(1\kappa _2)(1(4/3)\kappa _1(2/3)\kappa _3)})(\text{no sum over }l).`$ (73)
By analyzing the reality of the eigenvalues, the diagonalizability of the characteristic matrix, and the possibility of the symmetric characteristic matrix, we can classify the hyperbolicity of the system (72) as

weakly hyperbolic $``$ $`(1\kappa _2)(1(4/3)\kappa _1(2/3)\kappa _3)0,`$ (74)
strongly hyperbolic $``$ $`(1\kappa _2)=(1(4/3)\kappa _1(2/3)\kappa _3)=0,`$ (76)
$`\text{or }(1\kappa _2)(1(4/3)\kappa _1(2/3)\kappa _3)>0,`$
symmetric hyperbolic $``$ $`(1+\kappa _2)=(1(4/3)\kappa _1(2/3)\kappa _3).`$ (77)
That is, for the non-adjusted system, $`(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\kappa _3)=(0,0,0)`$, constraint propagation forms a strongly hyperbolic system, while the Baumgarte-Shapiro form gives only weakly hyperbolicity. (We note that the first-order version of CT-ADM by Frittelli-Reula  has also well-posed constraint propagation equations. )

### C Amplification factors on Minkowskii background

For a Minkowskii background, the constraint propagation equations at the linear order become

$`_t\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{𝒢}_{}^{i}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 2(\kappa _21)ik_j& 0\\ ((2/3)\kappa _1+(1/3)\kappa _3(1/2))ik_i& 0& 0\\ 0& 2\kappa _2\delta ^{ij}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{}_{i}^{}\\ {}_{}{}^{(1)}\widehat{𝒢}_{}^{i}\end{array}\right)`$ (78)
The constraint amplification factor becomes

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^l=(0,0,0,0,0,\pm \sqrt{k^2(1\kappa _2)(1(4/3)\kappa _1(2/3)\kappa _3)})$$
(79)
That is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^l`$ are either zero, pure imaginary or $`\pm `$ real numbers. For the non-adjusted system they are zero and pure imaginary (that is, the same as (16)), while the Baumgarte-Shapiro form gives us all zero eigenvalues. Therefore from our point of view, these two are not very different in their characterization of constraint propagation.

## VI Concluding remarks

We have reviewed ADM systems from the point of view of adjustment of the dynamical equations by constraint terms. We have shown that characteristic speeds and amplification factors of the constraint propagation change due to their adjustments. We compared the equations for the ADM, adjusted ADM, conformal traceless ADM (CT-ADM) systems, and tried to find the system that is robust for violation of the constraints, which we can call an “asymptotically constrained” system.

We conjectured that if the amplification factors (eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix of the Fourier-transformed constraint propagation equations) are negative or pure-imaginary, then the system has better asymptotically constrained features than a system they are not. According to our conjecture, the standard ADM system is expected to have better stability than the original ADM system (no growing mode in amplification factors). Detweiler’s modified ADM system, which is one particular choice of adjustment, definitely has good properties in that there are no growing modes in amplification factors. We also showed that this can be obtained by a simpler choice of adjustment multipliers.

We also studied the CT-ADM system which is popular with numerical relativists nowadays. However, from our point of view, we do not see any particular advantages for CT-ADM system over the standard ADM system.

The reader might ask why we can break the time-reversal invariant feature of the evolution equations by a particular choice of adjusting multipliers against the fact that the “Einstein equations” are time-reversal invariant. This question can be answered by the following. If we take a time-reversal transformation ($`_t_t`$), the Hamiltonian constraint and the evolution equations of $`K_{ij}`$ keep their signatures, while the momentum constraints and the evolution equations of $`\gamma _{ij}`$ change their signatures. Therefore if we adjust $`\gamma _{ij}`$-equations using Hamiltonian constraint and/or $`K_{ij}`$-equations using momentum constraints (supposing the multiplier has $`+`$-parity), then we can break the time-reversal invariant feature of the “ADM equations”. In fact, the examples we obtained all obey this rule. The CT-ADM formulation keeps its signature against the adjustments we made, so that we can not find any additional advantage from this analysis.

Considering the constraint propagation equations is a kind of substitutional approach for numerical integrations of the dynamical equations. However, this might be one of the main directions for our future research, as Friedrich and Nagy  impose the zero speed of the constraint propagation as the first principle when they considered the initial boundary value problem of the Einstein equations .

We are now applying our discussion to more general spacetimes, and trying to find guidelines for choosing appropriate gauge conditions from the analysis of the constraint propagation equations. These efforts will be reported elsewhere .

## Acknowledgements

HS appreciates helpful comments by Pablo Laguna, Jorge Pullin, Manuel Tiglio and the hospitality of the CGPG group. We also thank communication with Steven Detweiler. We thank Bernard Kelly for careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the NSF grant PHY00-90091, and the Everly research funds of Penn State. HS was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science as a research fellow abroad.

## A Numerical demonstrations of adjusted-ADM systems

We here show two numerical demonstrations of adjusted-ADM systems that were discussed in §IV C (Detweiler’s modified ADM system) and §IV D 1 (simplified version).

Detweiler’s adjustment, (33)-(35), can be parametrized by a constant $`L`$, and our prediction from the amplification factor on Minkowskii background is that this system will be asymptotically constrained for small positive $`L`$. Fig.1 is a demonstration of this system. We evolved Minkowskii spacetime numerically in a plane-symmetric spacetime, and added artificial error in the middle of the evolution. Our numerical integration uses the Brailovskaya scheme, which was described in detail in our previous paper . The code passes convergence tests and the plots are for 401 gridpoints in the range $`x=[0,10]`$, and we fix the time grid $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.2\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. The error was introduced as a pinpoint kick, in the form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_{yy}=10^3`$ at $`x=5.0`$ and $`t=0.25`$. We monitor how the L2 norm of the constraints $`(^2+_x^2)`$ behaves. From Fig.1, we see that a small positive $`L`$ reduces the L2 norm in time, which is the asymptotically constrained feature we expected. The case of slightly larger $`L`$ will make the system unstable. This is the same feature we have seen in the numerical demonstration of the $`\lambda `$-system or adjusted-Maxwell/Ashtekar systems, for that case the upper bound of the multiplier can be explained by violation of the Courant-Friedrich-Lewy condition, while in this system we can not calculate the exact characteristics since the system is not first-order.

Similarly, we plotted in Fig.2 the case of simplified version (the system of §IV D 1). We see the desired feature again by changing the parameter $`\kappa _0`$ that appear in (43).