text:
# Functions on groups and computational complexity

## 1 Introduction

The best studied functions on finitely presented group are the so-called “filling functions”, in particular the isoperimetric functions and the isodiametric functions, and more recently, the filling length. The significance of the filling functions comes from the following:
(1) The connection between the filling functions of a group presentation and the computational complexity of the word problem of that presentation. By their very definition, filling functions express the difficulty or intricateness of certain aspects of a group presentation; hence they are a form of complexity by themselves. Moreover, there are strong connections between certain filling functions and certain computational complexity functions of the word problem. Actually, the computational complexity functions of the word problem could be considered as filling functions too.
(2) All the filling functions of a group (including the computational complexity functions of the word problem) are algebraic invariants of the group, in the sense that if one takes a different finite presentation of the same group the filling functions change only linearly (i.e., “up to big-O”). Some filling functions (e.g., the computational complexity functions of the word problem) are even more strongly invariant; they do not depend on the presentation, and are invariants of the group (“up to big-O”) under change of finite set of generators. Filling functions can give structural information about a group, especially when the filling functions are small.

The term “filling function” is inspired from homotopy transformations, which “fill the space between” two objects that can be deformed into each other; this is Gromov’s point of view, which has been very influential . The same idea can be represented by different images in different contexts. From the point of view of computation, this consists of filling in the steps between the input and the output of a computation. Generally, any transformation that can be decomposed into (or built up from) a set of smaller transformations has filling functions that count various steps in the transformation. Filling functions in this general sense have been known since antiquity (e.g., the most elementary filling functions are the length, area and volume of curves, surfaces, bodies; the number of primes in the prime decomposition of an integer is another old example of a filling function). One of the most interesting new developments is the connection between “static” fillings (like length and area) and “dynamic” fillings (e.g., space and time complexity of computations).

Notation and terminology: For an alphabet $`A`$ we let $`A^1`$ be a disjoint copy of $`A`$. We write $`A^{\pm 1}`$ for $`AA^1`$. We will usually assume that $`|A|2`$. The free monoid generated by $`A^{\pm 1}`$ (i.e., the set of all finite sequences over the alphabet $`A^{\pm 1}`$, including the empty sequence $`1`$) is denoted by $`(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$; its elements are called words. The length of a word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ is denoted by $`|w|`$. For a set $`X`$, we denote the cardinality of $`X`$ by $`|X|`$. For a set of words $`R`$, we denote the sum of the lengths of the words in $`R`$ by $`R`$ ($`=_{rR}|r|`$). For a word $`w=a_1\mathrm{}a_n`$ with $`a_iA^{\pm 1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we define $`w^1=a_n^1\mathrm{}a_1^1`$. For a set $`R(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$, we define $`R^1=\{r^1:rR\}`$, and we define $`R^{\pm 1}=RR^1`$. We denote the free group over the generating set $`A`$ by FG$`(A)`$. We denote the reduction in FG$`(A)`$ by red; the word obtained from $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ by reduction in FG$`(A)`$ is red$`(w)`$. If $`G`$ is a group with generating set $`A`$ and if $`x,y(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ are words that represent the same element of $`G`$ we write $`x=_Gy`$, and we say that $`x`$ and $`y`$ are equivalent in $`G`$ (or equivalent modulo $`G`$); we call the relation $`=_G`$ on $`(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ the congruence defining the group $`G`$. If a group $`G`$ has a presentation $`A;R`$ with set of generators $`A`$ and set of relators $`R(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ then $`=_{_{A;R}}`$ denotes the the congruence on $`(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ determined by this presentation. The congruence class of a word $`w`$ modulo $`=_G`$ (i.e., the set $`\{x(A^{\pm 1})^{}:x=_Gw\}`$) is denoted by $`[w]_G`$. If $`x,y(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ are the same word we write $`x=y`$ and we say that $`x`$ and $`y`$ are literally equal (the Russian literature calls this “graphically equal”). We carefully distinguish between words ($`(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$) and elements of the free group FG$`(A)`$ (elements of a free group are equivalence classes of words); if $`x,y(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ are equivalent in the free group we write $`x=_{_{\mathrm{FG}(A)}}y`$ or $`x=_{_{\mathrm{FG}}}y`$. When used between words, “=” denotes literal equality. By $`g^h`$ we denote the conjugate ($`h^1gh`$) of $`gG`$ by $`hG`$. If $`x,y`$ are words $`((A^{\pm 1})^{})`$ we also use the notation $`x^y`$ for the word $`y^1xy`$. For a finite presentations $`A;R`$ we always assume that the empty word 1 is not a relator $`(1R)`$.

## 2 Filling functions on groups

###### Definition 2.1

An isoperimetric function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group is any function $`P:`$ with the following property: For every $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ there exists a finite sequence $`(r_i:iI)`$ of relators in $`R^{\pm 1}`$, and a finite sequence $`(x_i:iI)`$ of words in $`(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that

$`w=_{_{\mathrm{FG}}}_{iI}r_i^{x_i}`$ and $`|I|P(|w|)`$.

It is known that this definition is equivalent to stating that every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ has a van Kampen diagram with area $`P(|w|)`$. This characterization motivates the term “isoperimetric”.

It is also equivalent to saying that every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ can be rewritten to $`1`$ in at most $`P(|w|)`$ “steps”. To define a rewrite step we consider the finite rewrite system with alphabet $`A^{\pm 1}`$ and set of rules $`U_RU_{\mathrm{FG}}`$, where

$`U_R=\{uv:u,v(A^{\pm 1})^{},uv^1R^{\pm 1}\}`$,

$`U_{\mathrm{FG}}=\{aa^11,1aa^1:aA^{\pm 1}\}`$.

But in the isoperimetric function we do not count applications of the rules in $`U_{\mathrm{FG}}`$ (those are automatically part of any group and are taken for granted; moreover, they don’t show up in the van Kampen diagrams). Note that this rewrite system is symmetric, i.e., if $`xy`$ is a rule then $`yx`$ is rule too. The rewriting characterization is the oldest explicit definition of the isoperimetric function, under the name “rewrite distance” (Madlener and Otto ). Gromov  introduced the geometric point of view on these functions; see also Gersten’s explanations . In  it is proved that the rewrite distances (i.e., the isoperimetric functions) are invariants of the group, up to big-O, in the following sense: If one takes a different finite presentation of the same group, the isoperimetric function $`P(n)`$ becomes $`c_1P(c_2n)`$, where $`c_1,c_2>0`$ are “constants” (i.e., they do not depend on $`n`$, but they depend on the two presentations). This fact was rediscovered a little later independently by several authors.

Yet another equivalent definition of the isoperimetric function can be obtained by using the Cayley 2-complex of the presentation. An isoperimetric function of the presentation is any function $`P:`$ with the following property: For every $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ there exists a combinatorial homotopy in the Cayley 2-complex, starting with a loop labeled by $`w`$ (with base point $`1`$) and ending with the trivial loop consisting of the base point $`1`$; the area covered by the homotopy transformation is $`P(|w|)`$ (the “area covered” consists of all the faces used, with multiplicities, i.e., a same face that is counted repeatedly if it is used repeatedly).

###### Definition 2.2

A filling length function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group is any function $`F:`$ with the following property: Every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ can be rewritten to $`1`$ (i.e., $`ww_{N1}\mathrm{}w_i\mathrm{}w_1=1`$), using the rewrite system $`(A^{\pm 1},U_RU_{\mathrm{FG}})`$ defined above, in such a way that the intermediate words in the rewrite sequence are all of length $`|w_i|F(|w|)`$.

Another characterization of the filling length is that every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ has a van Kampen diagram which can be contracted to one point, homotopically, in such a way that all intermediary van Kampen diagrams encountered during this contraction have perimeter $`F(|w|)`$; see .

The concept of filling length was introduced by Gromov , and extensively studied by Gersten and Riley . They proved that the filling length changes only up to “big-O” (just like the isoperimetric function) when the finite presentation is changed.

###### Definition 2.3

An isodiametric function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group $`G`$ is any function $`D:`$ with the following property: For every $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ there exists a finite sequence $`(r_i:iI)`$ of relators in $`R^{\pm 1}`$, and a finite sequence $`(x_i:iI)`$ of words in $`(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that

$`w=_{_{\mathrm{FG}}}_{iI}r_i^{x_i}`$ and $`|x_i|D(|w|)`$ (for all $`iI`$).

This function was explicitly introduced by Gersten (see  for references). The above definition is equivalent to saying that every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ has a van Kampen diagram with diameter $`D(|w|)`$ (the diameter being measured from the origin of $`w`$ on the perimeter of the diagram).

Another characterization of the isodiametric functions is by means of a loop complex. For any positive integer $`j`$ we define a labeled directed graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ with labels in $`A`$, as follows:
\- First, we create a new vertex $`v_0`$ (the “origin”).
\- Second, for every relator $`rR`$ and every reduced word $`u(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`|u|j`$, we create a path labeled by $`u`$, starting from vertex $`v_0`$; at the non-$`v_0`$ end of this path we attach a loop labeled by $`r`$; in doing this, we create $`|u|+|r|1`$ new vertices (for every pair $`(u,r)`$). All the paths (and all the loops) are disjoint, except that all the paths have the common vertex $`v_0`$.
\- In order to get by with only the alphabet $`A`$ we replace each edge $`v_1\stackrel{a^1}{}v_2`$ by $`v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2`$, where $`v_1,v_2`$ are vertices and $`aA`$.
\- We can turn the graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ into a 2-complex by adding a face for each loop (the boundary of each face being the corresponding loop). We call this the loop-complex of radius $`j`$ of the presentation.
\- We can turn the labeled graph $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ into a nondeterministic finite automaton (an “NFA”) over the alphabet $`A^{\pm 1}`$. We take the vertex $`v_0`$ as both start and accept state, and we “symmetrize” each edge: for every edge $`v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2`$ we also introduce the “inverse edge” $`v_2\stackrel{a^1}{}v_1`$ into the NFA; no new vertices are created in this symmetrization. See  for definitions and basic facts about NFAs. The language accepted by an NFA $`N`$ is denoted by $`L(N)`$.

We call this NFA “$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$” too. The context will always make it clear whether we refer to the graph, the 2-complex, or the NFA; the vertex set is the same in the three cases.

The number of vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ is $`(R+|R|j)(2|A|)^jc^j`$, where $`c>1`$ is a constant that depends on the presentation $`A;R`$.

Characterization of the isodiametric functions: A function $`D()`$ is an isodiametric function of $`A;R`$ iff for every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`n`$ we have: $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff there is a loop in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$, starting and ending at $`v_0`$, and labeled by a word equivalent (in FG$`(A)`$) to $`w`$. This characterization of the isodiametric functions can be reformulated as follows:

###### Lemma 2.4

A function $`D()`$ is an isodiametric function of $`A;R`$ iff for every word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`|w|n`$ we have:

$`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})\mathrm{}`$.

The Lemma above can be refined to obtain an upper bound on the minimum isoperimetric function $`P_{\mathrm{min}}()`$ of $`A;R`$. Lemma 2.5 is important because it connects $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{min}}`$; from this we will be able to re-prove the famous “double exponential inequality” in a later section.

###### Lemma 2.5

Let $`A;R`$ be a finite presentation with minimum isoperimetric function $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and isodiametric function $`D`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{}(n)`$ has the property that for all words $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`n`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$, we have:

$`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})`$ contains a word of length $`\mathrm{}(n)`$.

Then $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)\mathrm{}(n)`$.

Proof: Since $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ and $`|w|1`$, Lemma 2.4 implies that $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})\mathrm{}`$. Let $`z[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})`$ with $`|z|\mathrm{}(n)`$. Then $`z=_{\mathrm{FG}}w`$ and $`z=_{iI}r_i^{x_i}`$ (literal equality) for some sequence of relators $`r_iR^{\pm 1}`$ and some sequence of words $`x_i`$ with $`|x_i|D(n)`$. Since the equality $`z=_{iI}r_i^{x_i}`$ is literal, and since all $`r_i`$ are non-empty, we conclude that $`|I||z|\mathrm{}(n)`$. Hence, by the definition of the isoperimetric function, $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)|I|`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For later use we introduce a slightly more compact NFA which can play the same role as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$ in Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5 (although it does not accept the same language). The tree NFA of radius $`j`$ for a presentation $`A;R`$ is defined as follows:
\- First, we take the Cayley graph of FG$`(A)`$, truncated to radius $`j`$ around the origin; this is a tree of depth $`j`$, with $`1+|A^{\pm 1}|(|A^{\pm 1}|1)^{j1}`$ vertices.
\- Second, for every $`rR`$, at every vertex of the above graph we attach a loop labeled by $`r`$.
\- We pick the root vertex of the tree as start and accept state.
\- We symmetrize all edges, in the same way as we did for the NFA $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$.
We call the resulting NFA “tree$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$”.

When $`R\mathrm{}`$, the number of states of tree$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ is $`R(1+|A^{\pm 1}|_{i=0}^{j1}(|A^{\pm 1}|1)^i)`$. Thus, when $`R\mathrm{}`$, the number of states is $`R(2|A|)^j`$.

###### Lemma 2.6

Let $`A;R`$ be a finite presentation.

$``$ A function $`D()`$ is an isodiametric function of $`A;R`$ iff for any word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`|w|n`$ we have:

$`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})\mathrm{}`$.

$``$ Let the minimum isoperimetric function of the presentation be $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and let $`D`$ be an isodiametric function. Suppose $`\mathrm{}(n)`$ has the property that for all words $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`n`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$, we have:

$`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})`$ contains a word of length $`\mathrm{}(n)`$.

Then $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)\mathrm{}(n)`$.

Proof. The proof is very similar to the proofs of Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

The loop complex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$ can be folded: Suppose in the graph we have $`v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2\stackrel{a}{}v_3`$, (or we have $`v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2\stackrel{a}{}v_3`$), where $`aA`$ and where $`v_1,v_2,v_3`$ are vertices. Then we “glue” $`v_1`$ and $`v_3`$ together; i.e., we replace $`v_1,v_3`$ by a new vertex $`v_{1,3}`$, and we replace the two edges $`v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2`$ and $`v_2\stackrel{a}{}v_3`$ by the single edge $`v_{1,3}\stackrel{a}{}v_2`$ (respectively, replace $`v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2`$ and $`v_2\stackrel{a}{}v_3`$ by $`v_{1,3}\stackrel{a}{}v_2`$). All in-edges (or out-edges) of $`v_1`$ and $`v_3`$ become in-edges (respectively out-edges) of $`v_{1,3}`$. This process continues as long as possible. Finally, to obtain a 2-complex we attach faces on all loops labeled by relators.

Based on the folded graph one can obtain a “folded NFA”, called f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$, by symmetrizing all edges, and taking $`v_0`$ as start and accept state. The folded NFA is actually deterministic (it is a “DFA”), and it has the following property:

###### Lemma 2.7

Let $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ be any word of length $`n(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$. Then we have $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff the reduced word red$`(w)`$ is accepted by the folded DFA f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$.

Proof: Let $`(N_i:i=0,1,\mathrm{},m)`$ be the sequence of NFAs obtained by successively folding edges; $`N_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$, and $`N_{i+1}`$ is obtained from $`N_i`$ by folding one pair of edges, for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$; the number of folding steps $`m`$ is less than the number of edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$, hence $`mc^{D(n)}`$ for some constant $`c>1`$.

We want to show that for each NFA $`N_i`$ ($`i=0,1,\mathrm{},m)`$, the language accepted satisfies red$`(L(N_i))=`$ red$`(L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}))`$. In other words, although $`L(N_i)`$ changes, the set of reductions of all words in $`L(N_i)`$ does not change.

(1) $`L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)})L(N_i)`$, hence we also have red$`(L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}))`$ red$`(L(N_i))`$ for all $`i`$.

This is straightforward, since folding does not destroy any reachabilities, but adds additional reachabilities. So, $`N_i`$ contains all the accepting paths of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$ (up to changes of vertex names).

(2) red$`(L(N_i))`$ red$`(L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}))`$ for all $`i`$.

To prove this we use induction on $`i`$. Inclusion (2) is obvious when $`i=0`$. Suppose red$`(L(N_{i1}))`$ red$`(L(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}))`$. Let $`p`$ be an accepting path in $`N_i`$. If $`p`$ does not use an edge involved in the folding step that leads from $`N_{i1}`$ to $`N_i`$, the path $`p`$ occurs in $`N_{i1}`$ too; so, any word accepted by $`N_i`$ by means of $`p`$ is also accepted by $`N_{i1}`$. If $`p`$ uses one edge involved in the folding step, the names of one of the vertices in $`p`$ changed when $`N_{i1}`$ was transformed to $`N_i`$, but the edge labels in $`p`$ do not change; so, here too, any word accepted by $`N_i`$ by means of $`p`$ is also accepted by $`N_{i1}`$. Finally, if two edges in $`p`$ are folded together then $`p`$ has the form $`p_1p_2`$, where

$`p_1(v_1\stackrel{a}{}v_2)`$ $`(v_2\stackrel{a}{}v_3)p_2`$

is a path in $`N_{i1}`$, $`aA`$ (we only consider one of the folding cases; the other is very similar). Let $`x_1,x_2(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ be the labels of $`p_1`$, respectively $`p_2`$. Along the path $`p`$, $`N_i`$ accepts $`x_1x_2`$, whereas $`N_{i1}`$ accepts $`x_1aa^1x_2`$; but red$`(x_1x_2)=`$ red$`(x_1aa^1x_2)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We will now define the “folded” versions of the above functions.

###### Definition 2.8

A folded isoperimetric function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group is any function $`p:`$ with the following property: Every $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ has a van Kampen diagram whose folded area is $`p(|w|)`$. The folded area of a van Kampen diagram is the number of faces in the 2-complex obtained by folding the van Kampen diagram. (Note: Faces that have the same boundary loop in the 2-complex are viewed as the same face.)

###### Definition 2.9

A folded filling length function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group is any function $`f:`$ with the following property: Every $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ has a folded van Kampen diagram that admits a homotopy transformation which starts with the loop $`w`$, and ends with the origin point, and with all intermediate loops of length $`f(|w|)`$.

As usual, “length” means length of a curve (or a path); it is not just the number of different edges; repetitions of edges are counted too.

###### Definition 2.10

A folded isodiametric function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group is any function $`d:`$ with the following property: Every $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ such that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ has a folded van Kampen diagram of diameter (measured from the origin) $`d(|w|)`$.

The folded isoperimetric function and the folded filling length function seem not to have appeared in the literature. The folded isodiametric function has been used a number of times; we will prove later that the minimum folded isodiametric function is equal to the minimum isodiametric function (and similarly for the filling length function).

Another function on finite presentations of groups can be defined by using the radius of the partial Cayley graphs; these partial Cayley graphs are constructed by the following version of the Todd-Coxeter process, used here for the word problem for words of length $`n`$. We closely follow  (p. 110); see also  (which presents a somewhat different graphical version of Todd-Coxeter, however).

In the process below we use the following definition. In a graph with origin $`v_0`$, a hair is an edge $`e`$ such that one end vertex $`v`$ of $`e`$ has the following properties: $`v`$ has degree 1, and $`vv_0`$.

Process TC on input $`A;R`$:

create a vertex $`v_0`$ (called “origin”);

repeat

1. for every vertex $`v`$ of the graph constructed so far:

for every letter $`aA`$ such that $`v`$ does not have an out-edge with label $`a`$:

create a new vertex $`(v,a)`$ and a new edge $`v\stackrel{a}{}(v,a)`$;

for every letter $`aA`$ such that $`v`$ does not have an in-edge with label $`a`$:

create a new vertex $`(v,a^1)`$ and a new edge $`v\stackrel{a}{}(v,a^1)`$;

2. for every vertex $`v`$ of the graph constructed so far:

for every relator $`rR`$ which does not label a loop originating at $`v`$:

create a new loop labeled by $`r`$ and originating at $`v`$;

3. fold the graph obtained so far;

(\* The folded graph constructed so far, with all hairs ignored, is called a

“partial Cayley graph”. \*)

We call TC a “process” (as opposed to “algorithm”) because it does not terminate.

###### Definition 2.11

A Todd-Coxeter radius of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ of a group $`G`$ is any function $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}:`$ with the following property:

After some number of steps the Todd-Coxeter process TC constructs a partial Cayley graph, called TC<sub>n</sub> with radius $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$ such that

$`(w(A^{\pm 1})^{},|w|n)`$ \[ $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff red$`(w)`$ labels a loop at the origin in TC<sub>n</sub> \].

When $`n`$ is even, the condition $`(w,|w|n)[w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff red$`(w)`$ labels a loop at the origin\] is equivalent to the following:

Within radius $`n/2`$ from the origin, the graph TC<sub>n</sub> is identical to the ball of radius $`n/2`$ of the Cayley graph of the presentation.

The concept of the Todd-Coxeter radius function appears indirectly in  (in the case when it is linear). I learned about it from Stuart Margolis and John Meakin .

If there exists a computable function which is an upper bound on $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}()`$ then the process TC can be used to decide the word problem of the presentation $`A;R`$.

We will view TC<sub>n</sub> as a DFA (deterministic finite automaton), by taking the origin $`v_0`$ as start and accept state, and by symmetrizing the edges (as we did for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{D(n)}`$). We will also view TC<sub>n</sub> as a 2-complex (which agrees with the Cayley 2-complex within radius $`n/2`$ when $`n`$ is even). The context will tell us which one of the three TC<sub>n</sub>’s we are talking about.

###### Proposition 2.12

For any word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`n`$ we have:

$`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff the DFA TC<sub>n</sub> accepts red$`(w)`$.

Proof. This follows immediately from the fact that $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff red$`(w)`$ labels a loop in the Cayley graph. Moreover, the partial Cayley graph TC<sub>n</sub> coincides with the Cayley graph within radius $`n/2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Another way to build a 2-complex in order to solve the word problem for words of length $`n`$ is as follows: For each $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`n`$ we consider all the van Kampen diagrams of $`w`$ of minimum folded diameter. We create a new vertex $`v_0`$, and attach the origins of all these van Kampen diagrams to $`v_0`$; now we have a connected 2-complex. Next, we fold this 2-complex. We call this the folded van Kampen 2-complex for words of length $`n`$, and denote it by fK<sub>n</sub>.

A third way to build a 2-complex in order to solve the word problem for words of length $`n`$ is as follows: We create a vertex $`v_0`$ (an origin). For every relator $`rR`$ and every word $`x(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ of length $`\lambda (n)`$ (for a certain function $`\lambda (n)`$ to be determined soon), we create a loop with origin $`v_0`$, labeled by $`r^x`$; this loop bounds one face. We denote this 2-complex by LC<sub>n</sub>. Next, we fold the 2-complex LC<sub>n</sub>, and denote the resulting 2-complex by fLC<sub>n</sub>. Finally, we choose $`\lambda (n)`$ large enough, but minimal, such that in fLC<sub>n</sub> we have: For every word $`w`$ of length $`n`$, $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff red$`(w)`$ labels a closed path through the origin.

The function $`\lambda (.)`$ above is called “folded loop-complex function”. One notes immediately that for the minimum function $`\lambda ()`$ of the presentation we have:

LC$`{}_{n}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$,

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ is the loop complex introduced following Definition 2.3. We call f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$ the folded loop-complex for words of length $`n`$.

###### Proposition 2.13

The Todd-Coxeter 2-complex TC<sub>n</sub> is equal to the folded loop 2-complex f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$, and contains the folded van Kampen 2-complex fK<sub>n</sub> as a subcomplex.

The minimum Todd-Coxeter radius function $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(.)`$, the minimum folded isodiametric function $`d(.)`$, the minimum folded loop-complex function $`\lambda (.)`$, and the minimum isodiametric function $`D(.)`$, are the same.

Proof. (1) TC<sub>n</sub> can be “pulled apart” into loops with labels $`r^x`$, with $`rR`$, $`|x|\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$ (one loop per face of the complex TC<sub>n</sub>). More precisely, the process of pulling a complex apart into loops goes as follows:
$``$ For each face $`f`$ in the complex, choose a path $`p_f`$ of length $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$ from the face to the origin of TC<sub>n</sub>. Let $`x`$ be the label of $`p_f`$ and let $`rR`$ be the label of the contour of $`f`$.
$``$ Create a new origin for the loop complex to be constructed.
$``$ Repeat the following, for each face $`f`$ of TC<sub>n</sub> until all faces have been removed from TC<sub>n</sub>:

\- Create a new path with label $`x`$, attached at the new origin;

at the other end of this path, attach a face with contour label $`r`$

(so, viewed from the new origin, this path-and-loop has label $`r^x`$).

\- Remove the face $`f`$ from its place in the TC complex.

The process of pulling TC<sub>n</sub> apart can be viewed as the inverse of the folding process; it is reversible at each step. Therefore, if these loops are folded up again, we recover TC<sub>n</sub>. So we have:

$`D(n)\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$,

where $`D`$ is the minimum isodiametric function.

(2) On the other hand, suppose we take all possible loops with label $`r^x`$, for every $`rR`$ and every reduced word $`x`$ of length $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$, and attach these loops to TC<sub>n</sub> at the origin, and fold. We claim that the 2-complex obtained is again TC<sub>n</sub>. Indeed, in each added loop the path labeled by $`x`$ has length $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$. By the minimality of the Todd-Coxeter radius function $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(.)`$, the process TC glues on all relators within radius $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$ anyway; hence, all $`r^x`$ (with $`x`$ reduced) occur already in TC<sub>n</sub>.

So, TC<sub>n</sub> can be built by taking the folded loop-complex of radius $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$. Since both $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(.)`$ and $`\lambda (.)`$ are minimal, we conclude that TC<sub>n</sub> = f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$, and $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)=\lambda (n)`$.

(3) Since TC<sub>n</sub> can be obtained by folding loops with labels $`r^x`$ with $`|x|\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)`$ (as seen at the beginning of the proof) we conclude that

$`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(n)D(n)`$.

Indeed, by Lemma 2.4, $`D(n)`$ is the radius of an unfolded loop-complex which can be used to decide the word problem for all words of length $`n`$. Hence, the process TC will decide the word problem after reaching radius $`D(n)`$.

(4) vK<sub>n</sub> can be pulled apart into loops with labels $`r^x`$, with $`rR`$, $`|x|d(n)`$. This process of pulling vK<sub>n</sub> apart is reversible at each step; therefore, if these loops are folded up again, we recover vK<sub>n</sub>.

Since f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$ has minimum radius, we conclude that $`\lambda (n)d(n)`$.

(5) At the same time, each folded van Kampen diagram of a word of length $`n`$ can be obtained by folding loops with labels $`r^x`$. If in a folded van Kampen diagram with minimal diameter, more loops are attached (at the origin) and folded in, this does not shrink the diameter (since the diameter is already minimum); hence all minimum-diameter folded van Kampen diagrams of words of length $`n`$, as well as the folded van Kampen complex fK<sub>n</sub> are subcomplexes of f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$. Hence we also have $`d(n)\lambda (n)`$ (since subcomplexes of f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$ cannot have a larger radius than f$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\lambda (n)}`$).

Hence, combining this with (4) we obtain, $`\lambda (n)=d(n)`$.

(6) We saw in (1) that $`D\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}`$, we saw in (2) that $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}=\lambda `$, and we saw in (3) that $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}D`$. Hence, $`D=\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}=\lambda `$. We saw in (5) that $`\lambda =d`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since the four functions $`\rho _{_{\mathrm{TC}}}(.),\lambda (.),d(.),D(.)`$ are the same, we will use $`d(.)`$ to denote all of them. The fact that $`d(.)`$ and $`D(.)`$ are the same appears implicitly in the literature (e.g., in  the definition of the folded isodiametric function is used for the “isodiametric function”, without mention that this is not the usual definition).

###### Theorem 2.14

For any finite presentation, the minimum filling length function $`F(.)`$ and the minimum folded filling length function $`f(.)`$, are the same.

Proof. Recall the characterization of the filling length in terms of a rewriting system (see the definition of filling length and the subsequent characterizations). The same rewriting characterization applies to the folded filling length, based on the folded van Kampen diagram fK<sub>n</sub>. Both the minimum filling length and the minimum folded filling length for a word $`w`$ are equal to the length of the longest intermediate word derived in the rewrite process from $`w`$ to $`1`$. Hence the two functions $`F`$ and $`f`$ are equal. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark: Minimum-area van Kampen diagrams may have much larger area than their folded version. For example, consider a finite presentation $`A;\{r\}`$ where $`r`$ is cyclically reduced (relative to $`FG(A)`$) and $`|r|>0`$, and consider the word $`w=r^n`$ (for any $`n>1`$). Then the van Kampen diagram of $`w`$, consisting of $`n`$ positive (counter-clockwise) loops labeled by $`r`$, attached at the origin, has area $`n`$. But the folded van Kampen diagram has only one face.

###### Theorem 2.15

Let $`P_{\mathrm{min}},f_{\mathrm{min}},d_{\mathrm{min}}`$ be the minimum isoperimetric function, respectively the minimum filling length function, respectively the minimum isodiametric function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$. Let $`p_{\mathrm{min}}`$ be the minimum folded isoperimetric function. These filling functions are related as follows (where $`c>1`$ is a constant that depends on the presentation; the constant may be different in different parts of the Theorem).

(1) $`d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)\frac{1}{2}f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)`$ $`c(P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)+n)`$, and $`p_{\mathrm{min}}(n)P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)`$.

(2) $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)nc^{c^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}}`$ (Cohen’s double exponential inequality)

(3) $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}`$ (Gromov, Gersten)

(4) $`f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)+n}`$ (Gersten, Riley)

(5) $`p_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}`$.

Proof (or references): For the proofs of the first two inequalities in (1) see . The inequality $`pP`$ is obvious. The double exponential inequality (2) is due to Daniel Cohen ; Steve Gersten  gave another proof, and Papasoglu  adapted Gersten’s proof to more general 2-complexes. We will give another proof of the double exponential inequality in a later section. (3) is due to Gromov and Gersten (, pp. 100-101). (4) was proved by S.M. Gersten and T. Riley (Thm. 3 in ).

(5) The folded isoperimetric function $`p()`$ is bounded by the number of faces in a folded van Kampen diagram with minimum diameter $`d(n)`$. Since every vertex in a folded van Kampen diagram has degree $`2|A|`$, it follows that a folded van Kampen diagram of diameter $`d(n)`$ has at most $`a^{d(n)}`$ edges (for some constant $`a>1`$ depending on $`|A|`$). Every face has a boundary of length $`m`$, where $`m=\mathrm{max}\{|r|:rR\}`$ (so, $`m`$ depends on the presentation but not on $`n`$). Therefore the folded van Kampen diagram has $`<(a^{d(n)})^m`$ different boundary edge-cycles, hence it has $`<c^{d(n)}`$ faces (for a constant $`c`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence of (4), (2) and (3) in the above Theorem we have the following break-up of the double exponential inequality (2) into two steps, when $`d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)an`$ (for a constant $`a>0`$): $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}`$ $`c^{C^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}}`$

In  Gersten and Riley use a slightly weaker form of the double exponential inequality, namely, $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{c^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)+n}}`$. By using (2) above, we can improve (4) and the break-up of (2):

(4’) $`f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}+d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)\mathrm{log}n`$

When $`d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)\mathrm{log}_an`$ (for a constant $`a>1`$):

(2’) $`P_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c^{f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}`$ $`c^{C^{d_{\mathrm{min}}(n)}}`$.

Question: How are the minimum filling length function $`f_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and the minimum folded isoperimetric function $`p_{\mathrm{min}}`$ related? Do we have $`f_{\mathrm{min}}(n)c(p_{\mathrm{min}}(n)+n)`$ (for some constant $`c>0`$)?

See , , and  for recent applications of isodiametric and other functions.

Earlier we discussed the folded van Kampen diagrams, and we used them to define the folded isoperimetric, isodiametric, and filling length functions (the latter two were later shown to be equal to their unfolded counterparts). We can define a further contraction of van Kampen diagrams by mapping van Kampen diagrams into the Cayley 2-complex; let’s call the image of such a mapping of a van Kampen diagram the “Cayley image of the van Kampen diagram”. We can then define new functions: The Cayley isoperimetric function (an upper bound on the number of faces in the Cayley image of van Kampen diagrams for words of length $`n`$), the Cayley isodiametric function (an upper bound on the diameter of the Cayley image), and the Cayley filling length function (an upper bound on the length of the homotopy loop within the Cayley complex, as word of length $`n`$ is contracted to a point).

This kind of mapping of van Kampen diagrams is different than folding; in the folding process we identify vertices (of the van Kampen diagram) that are equivalent in the free group; in the Cayley map, we identify vertices (of the van Kampen diagram) that are equivalent modulo the group $`G`$ under consideration.

## 3 Linear compression of the isoperimetric function

Computational complexity is usually studied up to big-O because of the linear speed-up theorem and the linear space compression theorem (see  for a reference). The filling functions are algebraic invariants up to big-O too; in addition, below we give an analogue of the linear speed-up and compression theorems for the isoperimetric function. It is not clear whether such a compression is possible for the isodiametric function and the filling length function.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`G`$ be a group that has a finite presentation with isoperimetric function $`P()`$. Then $`G`$ also has a finite presentation with respect to which the isoperimetric function is $`P(n)/2+n/2`$.

Proof. Let $`A;R`$ be a finite presentation of $`G`$ with respect to which the isoperimetric function is $`P()`$. Let $`m=`$ max$`\{|r|:rR\}`$ (length of the longest relator in $`R`$).

A new presentation of $`G`$ is obtained as follows. First, we symmetrize $`R`$, i.e., for each $`rR`$, we add $`r^1`$ and all cyclic permutations of $`r`$ and of $`r^1`$ as relators. Let $`A;R_s`$ be the symmetrized presentation obtained; this is still a presentation of the group $`G`$, with the same number $`m`$ defined above. Second, for any $`i`$-tuple of relators $`(r_1,\mathrm{},r_i)(R_s)^i`$ (with $`2im`$), we introduce the new relator red$`(r_1\mathrm{}r_i)`$. In terms of van Kampen diagrams this means that we glue $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_i`$ together along a part of their boundaries, starting at the origins of the relators. We call the set of newly created relators $`R_2`$. Obviously, $`A;R_sR_2`$ is a finite presentation of $`G`$.

We claim that the isoperimetric function of $`A;R_sR_2`$ is $`P(n)/2+n/2`$.

For a word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$ with $`n=|w|`$, if $`w=_G1`$ then there is a van Kampen diagram $`K`$ (over the original presentation $`A;R`$) of area $`P(n)`$. Let $`K^{}`$ be the dual graph of $`K`$, and let $`T^{}`$ be a spanning tree (a.k.a. maximal subtree) of $`K^{}`$, whose root is chosen to be the outer (unbounded) face. Let us now remove the root of $`T^{}`$; this yields a forest $`F^{}`$, with $`P(n)`$ vertices. For each member tree of $`F^{}`$ we choose the child of the root of $`T^{}`$ as the root. Since the root of $`T^{}`$ has degree $`n`$ in $`K^{}`$, there are $`n`$ member trees in the forest $`F^{}`$.

We will now use $`F^{}`$ to transform the van Kampen diagram $`K`$ (over the presentation $`A;R`$) into a van Kampen diagram of area $`P(n)/2+n/2`$ over the new presentation $`A;R_sR_2`$. The main observation is that each vertex in $`F^{}`$ has degree $`m`$, and each tree root of $`F^{}`$ has degree $`m1`$ in $`F^{}`$.

1. Let $`n_1`$ ($`n`$) be the the number of member trees in the forest $`F^{}`$ that consist on only one vertex. We leave that part of $`F^{}`$ alone.

2. For each member tree of $`F^{}`$ that has at least two vertices we do the following. We consider a maximal set $`S`$ of sibling leaves at maximum depth (siblings are vertices with the same parent). We fuse all the siblings in $`S`$ and their parent, thus forming a new vertex. In the van Kampen diagram $`K`$, this corresponds to fusing $`m`$ neighboring faces into one new face over the new presentation $`A;R_sR_2`$. From now on we ignore this new vertex (remove it from the picture).

3. We repeat step 2 as often as possible. When we reach the root of a member tree of $`F^{}`$, either it still has children (which are leaves now); then we fuse the root with these children into a new vertex. Or all the children were already removed. In the latter case, we fuse the root with any one of the new vertices that a child belongs to. Since every tree root in $`F^{}`$ has degree $`m1`$, this creates a new vertex of $`m`$ old vertices.

As a result, we obtain a van Kampen diagram over $`A;R_sR_2`$ with the following upper bound on the number of vertices:

$`n_1`$ (for the $`n_1`$ one-vertex member trees of the forest $`F^{}`$)
$`+(P(n)n_1)/2`$ (for the multi-vertex trees of the forest $`F^{}`$, in which each vertex was
fused with at least one other vertex; and at least one vertex was
fused with more than one other vertex)
$`n_1/2+P(n)/2n/2+P(n)/2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 A proof of the double exponential inequality, based on context-free languages

The double exponential inequality gives an upper bound on the minimum isoperimetric function $`P()`$ in terms of the minimum isodiametric function $`d()`$. It is surprising that $`d`$ should provide any bound at all on $`P`$.

There are many similarities between combinatorial group theory and the “low-complexity” theory of computation (see for example, , , ,, , , , , , , , , , ). An interesting consequence of the following proof is that, from the point of view of the theory of computation, the double exponential inequality belongs into the theory of context-free languages.

###### Theorem 4.1

If $`P()`$ is the minimum isoperimetric function of a finite presentation $`A;R`$ and $`d()`$ is the minimum isodiametric function of that presentation then we have for all $`n`$:

$$P(n)n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{Cc^{d(n)}}$$

where $`C=2(2|A|+1)R^2`$ and $`c=(2|A|)^2`$.

Proof. We will use Lemma 2.6. We fix a word $`w(A^{\pm 1})^{}`$, of length $`|w|=n>0`$, and we assume $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$. We consider the reduced word red$`(w)=v_1v_2\mathrm{}v_m`$ with $`|\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖽}(w)|=mn`$.

(1)  The language $`L(\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)})`$ is of course a regular language, accepted by the NFA tree$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)}`$, which has $`R(2|A|)^{d(n)}`$ states, as we saw just before Lemma 2.6. Notation: The set of next states of tree$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)}`$, reached from state $`q`$ under input letter $`a`$, will be denoted by $`qa`$. The accept (and start) state of tree$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)}`$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

It is well known that $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}`$ is a context-free language, accepted by a push-down automaton (a “pda”) with $`O(n)`$ states (see ,  for background on Dyck languages, and on context-free languages in general).

Here is a more detailed description of this pda, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_w`$. The state set is $`Q=\{f,s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_m\}`$, where $`s_m`$ is the start state and $`f`$ is the accept state. Recall that $`m=|\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖽}(w)|n`$. The stack alphabet is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A^{\pm 1}\{𝐳\}`$, where z is the bottom marker of the stack and is also the initial content of the stack. The input alphabet is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=A^{\pm 1}`$. As before, we will denote the empty word by 1 (in  it is denoted by $`\epsilon `$). The transition relation $`\delta :Q\times (\mathrm{\Sigma }\{1\})\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`Q\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is defined as follows:

Phase 1: Pop the top letter off the stack if the next input letter is the inverse of the top of the stack; otherwise, push the input letter on top of the stack.

$`\delta (s_m,a,a^1)=(s_m,1)`$, for all $`a\mathrm{\Sigma }`$;

$`\delta (s_m,a,b)=(s_m,ab)`$, for all $`a\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`ba^1`$.

Phase 2: Guess that the input is finished. Now, using “empty-input moves”, pop the stack and check that its content is the fixed word red$`(w)`$ (with the beginning of the word at the bottom of the stack):

$`\delta (s_i,1,v_i)=(s_{i1},1)`$ for $`i=m,\mathrm{},1`$;

$`\delta (s_0,1,𝐳)=(f,1)`$.

(2)  The intersection of a regular language and a context-free language is a context-free language; a pda for the intersection can be obtained thanks to a cartesian product construction (see  Theorem 6.5, or  Theorem 6.4.1). Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be this pda accepting $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)})`$, obtained by the cartesian product construction.

Let us describe the pda $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in more detail. The stack alphabet of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A^{\pm 1}\{𝐳\}`$, and the input alphabet is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=A^{\pm 1}`$, as before. For the state set of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ we could take the cartesian product of the state set of $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)}`$ and the state set of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_w`$, but we can leave out the states that will not occur in any accepting computation. Hence, the states we keep form the set $`Q=Q_1Q_2`$ where $`Q_1=Q_\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \{s_m\}`$ and $`Q_2=\{\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\}\times \{s_{m1},\mathrm{},s_1,s_0,f\}`$.

The transitions of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ form two groups (as in the case of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_w`$), which we call phase 1 and phase 2. The first subset $`Q_1`$ corresponds to phase 1, and has $`|Q_1|=|Q_\mathrm{\Lambda }|R(2|A|)^{d(n)}`$ states. In phase 1 the transitions are

$`\delta ((q,s_m),a,a^1)=\{((p,s_m),1):pqa\}`$, for $`a\mathrm{\Sigma },qQ_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$;

$`\delta ((q,s_m),a,b)=\{((p,s_m),ab):pqa\}`$, for $`b\mathrm{\Gamma },a\mathrm{\Sigma },qQ_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`ba^1`$.

The second subset $`Q_2`$ is used in phase 2, and has $`m+1`$ states. In phase 2 the transitions are

$`\delta ((\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_i),1,v_i)=((\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_{i1}),1)`$, $`i=m,\mathrm{},1`$;

$`\delta ((\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_0),1,𝐳)=((\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },f),1)`$.

It is important to note that the $`m+1`$ states in $`Q_2`$ appear only in pop moves.

The start state is $`(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_m)`$ and the accept state is $`(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },f)`$. When the pda $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ reaches its accept state its stack will always become empty; so, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ “accepts by empty stack”.

(3)  Next, from the pda $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (accepting by empty stack) we construct a context-free grammar that generates the language $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)})`$, thanks to a construction of Chomsky, Evey, and Schützenberger (see  Section 5.3, or  Theorem 5.4.3).

The set of non-terminals corresponding to phase 1 are $`S`$ (the start symbol of the grammar), and all symbols of the form $`[p,c,q]Q\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q`$. The rules of phase 1 are of the form

$`S[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_m),𝐳,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },f)]`$;

$`[(q,s_m),a,(p,s_m)]a^1`$, for any $`(q,s_m)Q_1`$, and $`pqa`$;

$`[(q,s_m),b,r_2]a[(p,s_m),a,r_1][r_1,b,r_2]`$,

for any $`r_1,r_2Q`$ and $`(q,s_m),(p,s_m)Q_1`$ with $`((p,s_m),ab)\delta ((q,s_m),a,b)`$.

The set of non-terminals corresponding to phase 2 is

$`\{[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_0),𝐳,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },f)]\}`$ $`\{[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_i),v_i,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_{i1})]:`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

These non-terminals belong to $`Q_2\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2`$, except for $`[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_m),v_m,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_{m1})]`$, which belongs to $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2`$. The only rules that have these non-terminals on the left-side are “empty-word rules”

$`[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_i),v_i,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_{i1})]1`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$;

$`[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_0),𝐳,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },f)]1`$.

(4)  We can simplify our grammar. First, we drop the non-terminals of phase 2 altogether, since they only generate the empty word; we directly replace them by the empty word wherever they occur in the grammar. Thus, we assume from now on that our grammar contains no non-terminals in $`Q_2\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2`$.

We can also drop $`S`$ and use $`[(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },s_m),𝐳,(\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Lambda },f)]`$ $`(Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2)`$ asthe start symbol.

We can discard all non-terminals in $`Q_2\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1`$ because such non-terminals do not occur on the left side of any rule of the grammar. As a consequence, in every rule of the form

$`[(q,s_m),b,r_2]a[(p,s_m),a,r_1][r_1,b,r_2]`$

we now have $`r_1Q_1`$. Hence, non-terminals in $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1`$ generate only non-terminals that are also in $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1`$. On the other hand, the words generated, in one step, by non-terminals in $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2`$ are in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1)(Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2)`$. The main consequence of this is:

Fact: In a parse tree of a word in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, only the right-most path can contain non-terminals in $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2`$. All other non-terminals in the parse tree belong to $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1`$.

In the following we will need bounds on the number of non-terminals (recall that $`|Q_1|=|Q_\mathrm{\Lambda }|R(2|A|)^{d(n)}`$, $`|Q_2|=m+1n+1`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=2|A|+1`$):

$`|Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1|(2|A|+1)R^2(2|A|)^{2d(n)}`$ $`=C_1c^{d(n)}`$,

$`|Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2|(n+1)(2|A|+1)R(2|A|)^{d(n)}`$ $`(<nC_1c^{d(n)})`$,

where $`C_1=(2|A|+1)R^2`$, and $`c=(2|A|)^2`$.

(5)  We now use the Pumping Lemma (due to Bar-Hillel, Perles, Shamir, see  Section 6.1, or  Theorem 6.2.1 and Corollary) which, among other things, states the following: If a language $`L\mathrm{}`$ has a context-free grammar with $`\nu `$ non-terminals then $`L`$ contains a word of length $`\mathrm{}^\nu `$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the maximum length of the right side of any rule. In our grammar, $`\mathrm{}=3`$ and $`\nu nc^{d(n)}`$ for some constant $`c>1`$. Thus, we immediately get an upper bound $`3^{nc^{d(n)}}`$ on the length of the shortest word. However, we can obtain a smaller upper bound if we use the above Fact in our analysis of parse trees.

Recall that the Pumping Lemma is proved by looking at recurrences of non-terminals on any path of the parse tree. A shortest word in the language will have a parse tree with no recurrent non-terminals on any path from the root. Hence, the right-most path of the parse tree has length

$`|Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1|`$

$`(n+1)(2|A|+1)R(2|A|)^{d(n)}+`$ $`(2|A|+1)R^2(2|A|)^{2d(n)}`$

$`nC_1c^{d(n)}`$, with $`c=(2|A|)^2`$ and $`C_1=(2|A|+1)R^2`$.

By the Fact above, elsewhere the non-terminals in the parse tree that are not on the right-most path belong to $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_2`$. In other words, every subtree of the parse tree, hanging at a vertex of the right-most path, has only non-terminals in $`Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1`$. Since there are no recurrent non-terminals, each one of these subtrees has depth

$`|Q_1\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times Q_1|`$ $`(2|A|+1)R^2(2|A|)^{2d(n)}=C_1c^{d(n)}`$.

Hence, since each non-terminal has at most 2 non-terminal successors, the number of non-terminals in such a subtree is

$`2^{C_1c^{d(n)}}`$.

Since the number of these subtrees is equal to the length of the right-most path, we find that the total number of non-terminals in the parse tree is

$`nC_1c^{d(n)}2^{C_1c^{d(n)}}`$ $`n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2C_1c^{d(n)}}`$ (using the fact that $`C_1c^{d(n)}<2^{C_1c^{d(n)}}`$).

Every non-terminal vertex has at most one terminal descendant in the parse tree, so the above upper bound also bounds the length of the shortest word in the language. Thus we have proved that for all words $`w`$ of length $`|w|n`$:

$`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ iff $`[w]_{\mathrm{FG}}L(\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)})`$ contains a word of length $`n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{Cc^{d(n)}}`$,

where $`C=2C_1`$. Now the Theorem follows from Lemma 2.6. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Computational complexity

We know from  and  that if $`P()`$ is an isoperimetric function for a finite presentation $`A;R`$, then the word problem of $`A;R`$ is in NTime$`(P)`$.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`A;R`$ be a finite presentation with isodiametric function $`d()`$. Then the word problem of $`A;R`$ is in DTime$`(c^{d()})`$, where $`c>1`$ is a constant depending on the presentation.

Proof: Given a word $`w`$ of length $`n`$, we can decide whether $`w=_{_{A;R}}1`$ as follows. Construct the NFA $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d(n)}`$; this can be done deterministically in time $`c^{d(n)}`$ (for some constant $`c>1`$). Next, we fold this automaton as in Lemma 2.7; this can be done deterministically in time $`C^{d(n)}`$ (for some constant $`C>1`$). Finally, check whether the folded DFA accepts red$`(w)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Tim Riley  observed that if a finite presentation has a filling length function $`f`$ then the word problem of that presentation has nondeterministic space complexity $`O(f)`$.

The following proposition strengthens this fact, by using symmetric Turing machines. Those are nondeterministic Turing machines whose transition relation is symmetric (i.e., the reverse of any transition of the machine is also a transition of that machine); see  and . One can define space complexity in relation to such machines: SymSpace$`(S)`$ is the set of all languages accepted by symmetric Turing machines with space $`S()`$. For time-complexity it is known that SymTime$`(T)=`$ NTime$`(T)`$ (proved by Lewis and Papadimitriou ). For space, DSpace$`(S)`$ SymSpace$`(S)`$ NSpace$`(S)`$; there are reasons to suspect that DSpace$`(S)`$ SymSpace$`(S)`$ NSpace$`(S)`$, but this remains an open problem.

###### Proposition 5.2

Let $`A;R`$ be a finite presentation of a group with filling length function $`f()`$. Then the word problem of $`G`$ is in SymSpace$`(f())`$.

Proof: We use the rewriting system characterization of the filling length function. Note that this rewrite system (described after the definition of isoperimetric functions) is symmetric. A symmetric Turing machine can simulate this rewrite system. Since the longest words that occur in the rewrite process have length $`f(n)`$, the space needed by the Turing machine is also $`f(n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The relations between filling functions on groups and the complexity of the word problem of groups are summarized below. Following the standard notation for complexity classes, we introduce classes of finite presentations of groups, based on their filling functions.

###### Definition 5.3

Consider any function $`h:`$. We define Isoper$`(h)`$ to be the set of all groups that have finite presentations $`A;R`$ whose minimum isoperimetric function $`P_{A;R}`$ satisfies

$`P_{A;R}(n)c_1h(c_2n)`$, for all $`nc_3`$.

Here, $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$ are positive constants, depending on $`A;R`$, but not on $`n`$. We say, “the minimum isoperimetric function is $`h`$ up to big-O”.

In a similar way we define the sets of finite presentations Isodiam$`(h)`$ for the isodiametric function, Filllen$`(h)`$ for the filling length function, and FIsoper$`(h)`$ for the folded isoperimetric function.

By NTime$`(q)`$ we denote all languages accepted by nondeterministic Turing machines with time complexity $`O(q(O(n)))`$. More precisely, for an accepted input of length $`n`$ the Turing machine has at least one accepting computation whose time is $`c_1q(c_2n)`$, for all $`nc_3`$; here, $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$ are positive constants, depending on the Turing machine.

In a similar way we define DTime$`(q)`$ and SymSpace$`(q)`$.

An inclusion between a class of groups and a class of languages (for example, $`\mathrm{Isoper}(q)\mathrm{NTime}(q)`$), is defined to mean that every group in $`\mathrm{Isoper}(q)`$ has its word problem in $`\mathrm{NTime}(q)`$.

In this notation, the inequalities in Theorem 2.15 and the inclusions in the above Propositions lead to the following (where $``$ and $``$ denote non-strict left-to-right or top-to-bottom inclusion).

###### Theorem 5.4

For any function $`q:`$ with $`q(n)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$ we have,

$`\mathrm{Isoper}(q)\mathrm{Filllen}(q)`$ $`\mathrm{Isodiam}(q)\mathrm{Filllen}(2^{O(q)})`$ $`\mathrm{Isoper}(2^{2^{O(q)}})`$

$``$ $``$

$`\mathrm{NTime}(q)\mathrm{SymSpace}(q)\mathrm{DTime}(2^{O(q)})`$ $`\mathrm{SymSpace}(2^{O(q)})\mathrm{NTime}(2^{2^{O(q)}})`$

Moreover, $`\mathrm{Isoper}(q)\mathrm{FIsoper}(q)`$, and $`\mathrm{Isodiam}(q)\mathrm{FIsoper}(2^{O(q)})`$.

Proof. To prove $`\mathrm{Isoper}(q)\mathrm{Filllen}(q)`$, observe that if a group has a finite presentation $`A;R`$ with isoperimetric function $`q`$ then $`A;R`$ has a filling length $`q`$ too (since the minimum filling length is $``$ the minimum isoperimetric function up to big-O, by (1) of Theorem 2.15). Hence, every presentation in $`\mathrm{Isoper}(q)`$ is also in $`\mathrm{Filllen}(q)`$.

The other inclusions follow from Theorem 2.15 in a similar way. $`\mathrm{}`$

We do not know whether any of the inclusions in the above theorem are strict. For the complexity classes, this is a well known open problem. Along the lines of ,  and  one could make the following conjecture.

Conjecture. A finitely generated group $`G`$ has its word problem in SymSpace$`(S)`$ iff $`G`$ is embeddable in a finitely presented group $`H`$ whose filling length function is $`O(S)`$.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank John Meakin, Stuart Margolis, Ilya Kapovich, and especially Tim Riley for enlightning discussions.

Jean-Camille Birget
Dept. of Computer Science
Rutgers University - Camden
Camden, NJ 08102, USA
birget@camden.rutgers.edu


format: text

text:
# Modeling of the saturation current of a fission chamber taking into account the distorsion of electric field due to space charge effects

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A fission chamber is a device that measures a neutron flux and that is weakly disturbed by the gamma flux \[2, p 503\].
In fig. 1, we show the basic principle behind the use of a fission chamber as a neutron detector. A thin layer of fissile material ($`{}_{}{}^{U}235`$ for instance) is deposited on the anode. When a neutron traverses the detector, it may collide with a fissile atom (the probability is proportional to the fission reaction cross section) and the resulting reaction generates two charged particles (Fission Fragment : FF) produced by fission. Those charged particles cross the argon atmosphere between the two electrodes of the chamber (anode and cathode) and ionize the gas on their trajectory creating an average of $`\mathsf{0.3}\mathrm{𝗂𝗈𝗇}\mathrm{𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗋𝗌}/\mathrm{𝗇𝗆}`$ ($`\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+`$, $`𝖾^{}`$). A DC voltage of a few hundred volts being applied between the two electrodes, those electrons and ions drift across the gas in response to the applied electric field producing a signal that can be amplified and processed.
The voltage-current characteristic of a fission chamber can present a saturation plateau. It means that, in a voltage interval, the current delivered by the chamber is roughly constant. The saturation current is proportional to the neutron flux, that is the reason why we need to know when the chamber works in saturation conditions. But, for a given geometry, the so called voltage interval depends on the neutron flux. The main aim of this study is to determine the relevant parameters of the chamber and the optimal voltage that answer the neutron flux requirement of the user.
Firstly, we will study quantitatively the conversion of neutrons into fission fragments and into ion-pairs. Secondly, we will spend some time to understand the charge collection and the creation of the signal. Then, we will compare the results predicted by our model with those obtained experimentally.

## 2 ION-PAIR CREATION

### 2.1 Neutrons make Fissions

We are dealing with the fission reaction that turns an uncharged particle (neutron) into charged particles (FF) which are easier to detect :

$$(𝗇,𝖴^{235})(\mathrm{𝟤}𝖥𝖥,\mathsf{2.3}\mathrm{𝗇𝖾𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗌},\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗒})$$

Let $`\mu _s`$ be the surface mass of fissile product (for a subminiature fission chamber $`\mu _𝗌=\mathrm{𝟩𝟨𝟢}\mu 𝗀\mathrm{𝖼𝗆}^\mathrm{𝟤}`$). This parameter decreases during the life of the chamber, because fissile atoms are not regenerated. This is our stock of fission fragments. The rate of fission reactions per surface unit is given by

$$𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗌𝗍}}=_\mathrm{𝟢}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma (ϵ)\frac{\mu _𝗌}{𝖬_𝖴}𝖭_𝖠\mathsf{\Phi }_ϵ(ϵ)𝖽ϵ$$

(the subscript fst stands for fission per unit surface per unit time). $`𝖬_𝖴`$ is the molar mass of $`{}_{}{}^{U}235`$, $`𝖭_𝖠`$ is the number of Avogadro, $`\sigma (ϵ)`$ is the fission cross section for neutron of energy $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathsf{\Phi }_ϵ(ϵ)`$ is the energetic density of the incoming neutron flux. For the next steps we will call $`\chi =_\mathrm{𝟢}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma (ϵ)\mathsf{\Phi }_ϵ(ϵ)𝖽ϵ`$. A same value of $`\chi `$ can be generated by various neutron spectra. We just have to find the right spectra of incoming neutron $`\mathsf{\Phi }_ϵ(ϵ)`$. This could cause a problem as we are going to see in the next part.

### 2.2 Fissions make fission fragments

For example : take two different spectra of incoming neutrons that generate the same fission rate $`\chi `$. Let us consider one flux of incoming neutrons of energy $`\mathsf{0.04}\mathrm{𝖾𝖵}`$ and one of energy $`\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$. For $`{}_{}{}^{U}235`$,

$$\sigma (\mathsf{0.04}\mathrm{𝖾𝖵})=\mathrm{𝟧𝟩𝟢}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗇}and\sigma (\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵})=\mathsf{0.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗇}.$$

Then a flux of $`\mathsf{1.0}\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}^{\mathrm{𝟣𝟤}}𝗇\mathrm{𝖼𝗆}^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}`$ for $`\mathsf{0.04}\mathrm{𝖾𝖵}`$ neutrons and a flux of about $`\mathsf{5.7}\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}^{\mathrm{𝟣𝟧}}𝗇\mathrm{𝖼𝗆}^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ neutrons result in the same reaction rate $`\chi `$ : $`\chi =\mathsf{5.7}\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}^{\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}}𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}`$ and the same number of fission fragments is created. The problem is that, a priori, the nature and the energy of these fragments is not the same as the ionization rate in the gas. Fortunately, the distribution of fission fragments (fig. 2) do not vary significantly with the energy of the incoming neutrons. Moreover, since the average energy of the 2 $`\mathrm{𝖥𝖥}`$ is about $`\mathrm{𝟣𝟨𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$, we can say that even a difference of $`\mathrm{𝟣𝟧}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ in the energy of incoming neutron induces an error of less than $`\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}\%`$. So, we will suppose that the fission fragments distribution and the fission fragments energy distribution do not vary significantly for incoming neutron energies between $`\mathrm{𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟣𝟧}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$.

### 2.3 Fission fragments make ion-pairs

One fission gives birth to two fission fragments. Their average energy is around $`\mathrm{𝟫𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ for the lightest and $`\mathrm{𝟨𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ for the heaviest. If the energy of the incident neutron is negligible compared to $`\mathrm{𝟫𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟨𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ it is accurate to say those FF emerge in opposite directions. Thus only one FF participates in the gas ionization, the other one being absorbed by the anode.

#### 2.3.1 Calculation of the number of ion-pairs created per unit time per unit volume

We want to calculate the density of ion-pairs created per unit time ($`𝖭(𝗋)`$) at a distance $`𝗋`$ from the anode axis (see on fig. 3). We assume the hypothesis that FFs are emitted in every direction with the same probability. Let $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗍}}`$ be the number of fission reactions on the surface element $`\mathrm{𝖽𝖲}`$ per unit time.

$$𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗍}}=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗌𝗍}}\mathrm{𝖽𝗓}𝗋_𝖺𝖽\theta $$

Let $`𝖨^𝖼(𝗑)`$ be the average number of ion-pairs created by a fission fragment per unit of length travelled per unit pressure. $`𝗑`$ representes the distance travelled from the creation point. We can calculate the number of ion-pairs created per unit of time in the volume element $`𝖽\tau =𝗋^{}𝖽\psi \mathrm{𝖽𝗋}^{}\mathrm{𝖽𝗓}`$ around the point $`𝖯`$. This number is

$$\mathrm{𝖽𝖭}=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗍}}\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗌}(\psi )\frac{𝖽\psi }{\pi }\mathrm{𝗉𝖨}^𝖼(𝗋^{})\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}^{}$$

where p is the pressure of the chamber. Thus, the density of ion-pairs created in $`𝖯`$ because of $`\mathrm{𝖽𝖲}`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝖽𝖭}}{𝖽\tau }=\frac{𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗌𝗍}}}{\pi }\frac{𝗋_𝖺}{𝗋^{}}\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗌}(\psi )𝖽\theta \mathrm{𝗉𝖨}^𝖼(𝗋^{})$$

In the case of a sub-miniature fission chamber the trajectory of fission fragments is short enough to consider $`𝖨^𝖼(𝗋)`$ to be constant equal to $`𝖨_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼`$ Thus we can say that the density of ion-pairs created at distance $`𝗋`$ from the axis per unit time is

$$𝖭(𝗋)=_{\mathrm{𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗌}(𝗋_𝖺/𝗋)}^{\mathrm{𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗌}(𝗋_𝖺/𝗋)}𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗌𝗍}}\frac{\mathrm{𝗉𝖨}_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼𝗋_𝖺(𝗋\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗌}(\theta )𝗋_𝖺)}{𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}+𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋𝗋_𝖺\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗌}(\theta )}𝖽\theta $$
(1)
#### 2.3.2 Justification of $`𝖨^𝖼(𝗋)`$ constant equal to $`𝖨_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼`$

The results of this part are due to the program SRIM of J.F Ziegler which calculates the stopping and range of ions in solids, liquids and gases . In fig. 4, we show the energy loss of two typical fission fragments : $`{}_{}{}^{M}95`$ at $`\mathrm{𝟫𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{L}139`$ at $`\mathrm{𝟨𝟢}\mathrm{𝖬𝖾𝖵}`$. The space separating the electrodes of all types of fission chambers is no longer than a few milimeters. For such a distance, we can notice that the energy loss by ionization in argon is roughly constant equal to $`\mathsf{4.5}\mathrm{𝗄𝖾𝖵}.\mu 𝗆^\mathrm{𝟣}`$ and so is $`𝖨^𝖼(𝗋)`$. Suppose that the creation of one ion-pair requires $`\mathrm{𝟤𝟥}\mathrm{𝖾𝖵}`$ (ionization energy of argon). We can say that the number of ion-pairs created by one typical FF per unit of length through the gas is $`𝖨_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼=\mathsf{2.\hspace{0.17em}10}^\mathrm{𝟧}\mathrm{𝗂𝗈𝗇}\mathrm{𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗋𝗌}/\mathrm{𝗆𝗆}/\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$. This hypothesis will be the first source of error.

#### 2.3.3 Asymptotic hypothesis

It would be quite difficult to work with (1). It simplifies singularily if, instead, we take the asymptotic version $`(𝗋𝗋_𝖺)`$ or $`(𝗋+\mathrm{})`$. Suppose $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)𝗋_𝖺`$ then $`𝗋`$ remains in the vicinity of $`𝗋_𝖺`$ and we can assume that $`𝖭(𝗋)`$ is constant and equal to its value in $`𝗋_𝖺`$

$$𝖭(𝗋)=𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{𝟤}}𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗌𝗍}}\mathrm{𝗉𝖨}_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼$$

Suppose, now, $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)𝗋_𝖺`$ then we can take with a good accuracy the equivalent of $`𝖭(𝗋)`$ at infinite,

$$𝖭(𝗋)=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖿𝗌𝗍}}\mathrm{𝗉𝖨}_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼\frac{𝗋_𝖺}{𝗋}=\frac{\beta }{𝗋}$$

In fact, the first approximation fits with the case of plane electrodes, and the second squares with cylindrical geometry of the chamber. Those hypothesis will be the second source of error.

## 3 PHYSICAL PHENOMENA IN THE GAS

Let $`𝖭(𝗋)`$ be the number of ion-pairs created by fission fragments per unit of time and volume in the gas (it depends on $`\chi =\sigma (ϵ)\mathsf{\Phi }_ϵ(ϵ)𝖽ϵ`$ as seen before). We will suppose this number to be equal to $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ in the entire volume of the gas, because most fission chambers verify the geometrical hypothesis $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)𝗋_𝖺`$. This approximation will give us only an order of magnitude. But, from an experimental point of view, it would be utopic to expect better than this. Indeed, the geometry of a fission chamber varies from one to the other. It is impossible to get a perfectly cylindrical geometry, and this may cause some difference of charge collection between two similar models of fission chambers. Various physical phenomena can occur in the gas . Comparing experiment and theory, we noticed that only certain effects could be taken into account.

### 3.1 Primary ionization

The primary ionization corresponds to the ionization reaction$`(\mathrm{𝖥𝖥},\mathrm{𝖠𝗋})(\mathrm{𝖥𝖥},\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+,𝖾^{})`$. The fission fragments ionize the argon and generate ion pairs ($`\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+`$,$`𝖾^{}`$) and they lose energy by this process (see on fig. 4).

### 3.2 Electrical drift and temperature

The DC voltage applied between the two electrodes generates an electric field that is responsible for the movement of electrons towards the anode and ions towards the cathode. This is the electrical drift. The respective velocity of electrons and ions in such a field are $`\mu _{}𝖤`$ and $`\mu _+𝖤`$ where $`\mu _{}`$ and $`\mu _+`$ are the mobility of those particles in the gas . In a gas, the mobility of a charged particle is assumed to be inversely proportional to the pressure of the gas . For argon :

$$\mu _{}=\mathsf{0.13}𝗆^\mathrm{𝟤}.\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}.𝖵^\mathrm{𝟣}.𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}$$

$$\mu _+=\mathsf{0.13\hspace{0.17em}10}^\mathrm{𝟥}𝗆^\mathrm{𝟤}.\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}.𝖵^\mathrm{𝟣}.𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}$$

Since the pressure is proportional to the temperature, we can say that the mobility varies as the inverse of the temperature. This will be the only effect of the temperature modelized.

### 3.3 Recombination

Since $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+`$ and $`𝖾^{}`$ are oppositely charged particles, it is also possible that a certain amount of those particles recombine into mother particles $`(𝖾^{},\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+)\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}`$. This is the recombination reaction . The rate of recombination depends on the local density of ions and electrons and is given by

$$(\frac{\mathrm{𝖽𝗇}_{}}{\mathrm{𝖽𝗍}})_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}=(\frac{\mathrm{𝖽𝗇}_+}{\mathrm{𝖽𝗍}})_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}=\alpha 𝗇_{}𝗇_+$$

The tabulated value of $`\alpha `$ is assumed to be $`\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}^{\mathrm{𝟣𝟤}}\mathrm{𝖲𝖨}`$ for argon

### 3.4 Threshold condition

Now, suppose that the electric field is strong enough to give the free electrons a kinetic energy of a few eV (order of magnitude). The secondary ionization reaction $`(𝖾^{},\mathrm{𝖠𝗋})(\mathrm{𝟤}𝖾^{},\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+)`$ is then possible. The thermal kinetic energy is about $`\mathsf{0.04}\mathrm{𝖾𝖵}`$. It means that the kinetic energy of a few eV of electrons is mainly due to the electric field : $`\mathrm{𝖪𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼}\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗒}=\frac{\mathrm{𝟣}}{\mathrm{𝟤}}𝗆_𝖾(\mu _{}𝖤_𝖲/𝗉)^\mathrm{𝟤}`$ is about a few eV. For a $`\mathsf{1.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ pressure of Argon we can calculate the electric field threshold ($`𝖤_𝖲`$) that permits the secondary ionization reaction :

$$𝖤_𝖲=\mathrm{𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾}\mathrm{𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗍𝗌}\mathrm{𝗈𝖿}\mathrm{𝟣𝟢}^\mathrm{𝟨}𝖵𝗆^\mathrm{𝟣}$$

In this way, this hypothesis can explain the fact that the end voltage of the saturation plateau is higher when the pressure is higher (ref. part $`\mathsf{2.1}`$). Indeed, in order to maintain the kinetic energy constant, we must keep the ratio $`𝖤_𝖲/𝗉`$ constant. It means that $`𝖤_𝖲`$ is proportional to the pressure of argon. In our model, we took, for a $`\mathsf{1.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber, $`𝖤_𝖲=\mathsf{1.7\hspace{0.17em}10}^\mathrm{𝟨}𝖵𝗆^\mathrm{𝟣}`$.

## 4 CHARGE COLLECTION

### 4.1 Minimum voltage for steady state solution

The relevant signal of a fission chamber in the current mode is the RMS value of the current. We are not interested in the noise generated by the chamber. Thus, we are going to study the stationary state of the chamber. If we want a steady state solution to exist, all phenomena must balance. Suppose that the only effects we take into account are the primary ionization ( this is the dominant effect on the saturation plateau ) and the electrical drift. As soon as recombination is of the order of magnitude of primary ionization this hypothesis will not be valid anymore. These hypotheses will enable us to compute easily the electron density, the ion density and the electric field. We expect a minimum value of the voltage under which the electric field is not strong enough to evacuate the charges created by the primary ionization. Thus, below this minimum voltage a steady state solution could not exist. We will evaluate the validity domain of these hypotheses by comparing the value of $`\alpha 𝗇_{}𝗇_+`$ a posteriori and the value of $`𝖭`$. But, for now, let us compute the steady state solution of this problem with these hypotheses

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟣}}{𝗋}𝖽_𝗋(𝗋\mu _{}𝖤𝗇_{})=𝖭(𝗋)=𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}$$
(2)
$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟣}}{𝗋}𝖽_𝗋(𝗋\mu _+𝖤𝗇_+)=𝖭(𝗋)=𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}$$
(3)
$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟣}}{𝗋}𝖽_𝗋(𝗋𝖤)=\frac{𝖾}{ϵ_\mathrm{𝟢}}(𝗇_+𝗇_{})$$
(4)
Since the voltage is maintained constant we have an integral condition on the electric field whose structure depends on the space charge distribution (4)

$$_{𝗋_𝖺}^{𝗋_𝖼}𝖤(𝗋)\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}=𝖵_𝗉$$
(5)
We need two boundary conditions on $`𝗇_+`$ and $`𝗇_{}`$. $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+`$ drift towards the cathode and $`𝖾^{}`$ towards the anode. For a steady state solution, in order to avoid an accumulation of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗋}^+`$ at the cathode and $`𝖾^{}`$ at the anode, $`𝗇_{}`$ and $`𝗇_+`$ must verify

$$𝗇_+(𝗋_𝖺)=\mathrm{𝟢}$$
(6)
$$𝗇_{}(𝗋_𝖼)=\mathrm{𝟢}$$
(7)
The system of non linear differential equations (2) to (4) with conditions (5) to (7) is self-sufficient. They induce

$$𝗇_{}(𝗋)=\frac{𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}(𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋\mu _{}𝖤}$$
(8)
$$𝗇_+(𝗋)=\frac{𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}(𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋\mu _+𝖤}$$
(9)
Thus, thanks to (4)

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟣}}{𝗋}𝖽_𝗋((\mathrm{𝗋𝖤})^\mathrm{𝟤})=𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}\frac{𝖾}{ϵ_\mathrm{𝟢}}\left(\frac{(𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mu _+}+\frac{(𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mu _{}}\right)$$

We can integrate this differential equation and then we get

$$𝖤(𝗋,𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢},𝖢)=[𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}\frac{𝖾}{\mathrm{𝟦}ϵ_\mathrm{𝟢}}\left(\frac{(𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mu _+}+\frac{(𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mu _{}}\right)+\frac{𝖢}{𝗋^\mathrm{𝟤}}]^{\frac{\mathrm{𝟣}}{\mathrm{𝟤}}}$$

where $`𝖢`$ is a constant of integration whose value can be calculated with the condition (5). We notice that we cannot find a $`𝖢`$ for every $`𝖵_𝗉`$. This is what we expected. For a given geometry of the chamber and for a given value of $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$, there is a minimum voltage $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$ under which there is not any steady state solution for the problem. The value of $`𝖢=𝖢_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}`$ for this minimum voltage is given by the condition $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)=\mathrm{𝟢}`$. For every $`𝖢>𝖢_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}`$, the electric field is nonzero, which is a necessary condition for $`𝗇_{}`$ and $`𝗇_+`$ to exist (see (9) and (10)).

$$𝖢_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})=𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}\frac{𝖾}{\mathrm{𝟦}ϵ_\mathrm{𝟢}}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}\left(\frac{𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}}{\mu _+}+\frac{\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}}{\mu _{}}\right)$$

Thus we can say that the begining voltage of the saturation plateau is greater or equal than

$$𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})=_{𝗋_𝖺}^{𝗋_𝖼}𝖤(𝗋,𝖢_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}})\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}$$

whatever $`\alpha `$ is (the recombination constant) we cannot find a saturation below this limit. We can notice the importance of space charge effect at the begining of the saturation plateau.

### 4.2 The saturation domain on a voltage-flux graph

#### 4.2.1 Recombination limit : $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}`$

The saturation current corresponds to the collection of all electrons created by the primary ionisation. So, $`𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}`$ is equal to $`𝖾_{𝗋_𝖺}^{𝗋_𝖼}𝖭(𝗋)\mathrm{𝟤}\pi 𝗋𝖫\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}`$, that is to say

$$𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}=\pi 𝖾\mathrm{𝖫𝖭}_\mathrm{𝟢}(𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})$$
(10)
We can notice that $`𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}`$ depends on the product $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)(𝗋_𝖼+𝗋_𝖺)`$ whereas for a chamber for which $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)𝗋_𝖺`$ , $`𝖭(𝗋)`$ would be $`\beta /𝗋`$ and thus $`𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}`$ would depend only on $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)`$. The limitations of the saturation plateau are due to the recombination and the threshold condition. The recombination modifies the saturation current by the following quantity

$$\delta 𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}=𝖾_𝖵(\alpha 𝗇_+𝗇_{})𝖽\tau $$

This quantity can be evaluated by replacing $`𝗇_+`$ and $`𝗇_{}`$ by their value calculated in (4.1). Since the value of $`\alpha `$ is very weak we can consider that $`\delta 𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}`$ becomes important, relatively to $`𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}`$, at the vicinity of $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$. Indeed, at this point $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)=\mathrm{𝟢}`$, so $`𝗇_+(𝗋_𝖺)`$ and $`𝗇_{}(𝗋_𝖺)`$ tend to infinity (theoretically speaking). So is $`\delta 𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}`$. That is why we assume that the beginning voltage of the saturation plateau $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}`$ is equal to $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$.

#### 4.2.2 Threshold limit : $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}`$

Suppose that over a certain electric field threshold ($`𝖤_𝖲`$) there is an electronic multiplication that ends the saturation plateau. We want to determine, for a given value of $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$, the minimum voltage corresponding to the beginning of this phenomenon. It appears when either $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)`$ or $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖼)`$ becomes greater than $`𝖤_𝖲`$ since the function $`𝖤(𝗋)`$ is concave.
Suppose $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}=\mathrm{𝟢}`$. There is no ion-pair created in the volume of the gas. So there is no space charge problem. Thus, the electric field has the well known form in $`\mathrm{𝟣}/𝗋`$ (see graph. 1 on fig. 5). We reach the threshold condition if $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)=𝖤_𝖲`$ that is to say $`𝖢_\mathrm{𝟣}=𝖤_𝖲^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}`$ and then $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}(\mathrm{𝟢})=𝖤(𝗋)\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}=𝖤_𝖲𝗋_𝖺\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}/𝗋`$.
Suppose now that we increase the value of $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$. Since ion-pairs are created in the gas, space charge may cause electric field distortion. On fig. 5 , we can see the evolution of the electric field with $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ (the voltage is maintained constant). We can meet three cases at the threshold condition : either $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)>𝖤(𝗋_𝖼)`$ and then $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)=𝖤_𝖲`$ (graph. 1 on fig. 5), $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)=𝖤(𝗋_𝖼)`$ and then $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)=𝖤(𝗋_𝖼)=𝖤_𝖲`$ (graph. 2 on fig. 5), or $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖺)<𝖤(𝗋_𝖼)`$ and then $`𝖤(𝗋_𝖼)=𝖤_𝖲`$ (graph. 3 on fig. 5). The first case involves that

$$𝖢_\mathrm{𝟣}=𝖤_𝖲^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}+\frac{𝖾}{\mathrm{𝟦}ϵ_\mathrm{𝟢}}𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}\left(\frac{𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤}}{\mu _+}+\frac{(\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mu _{}}\right)$$

and the corresponding voltage

$$𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑𝟣}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})=_{𝗋_𝖺}^{𝗋_𝖼}𝖤(𝗋,𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢},𝖢_\mathrm{𝟣})\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}$$

The second and third case involve that

$$𝖢_\mathrm{𝟤}=𝖤_𝖲^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}\frac{𝖾}{\mathrm{𝟦}ϵ_\mathrm{𝟢}}𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}\left(\frac{(𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})}{\mu _+}\frac{𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}}{\mu _{}}\right)$$

and the corresponding voltage

$$𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑𝟤}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})=_{𝗋_𝖺}^{𝗋_𝖼}𝖤(𝗋,𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢},𝖢_\mathrm{𝟤})\mathrm{𝖽𝗋}$$

We can notice, because of the expression of $`𝖢_\mathrm{𝟣}`$ and $`𝖢_\mathrm{𝟤}`$, that space charge becomes important for high value of $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$. Moreover this space charge effect is responsible for the maximum value of $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝟢}𝗆𝖺𝗑}`$ over which saturation cannot exist.

### 4.3 The use of these results

Suppose we want to know the saturation domain of a given fission chamber for a given incoming neutron spectra. We have to calculate $`\chi =\sigma (ϵ)\mathsf{\Phi }_ϵ(ϵ)𝖽ϵ`$. For this purpose we can use a Monte Carlo code, like MCNP, developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to simulate the collision of neutrons with the fission chamber and the fissile product inside, and then to calculate $`\chi `$ and $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$. Then, knowing the geometry of the chamber, we can get $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$, which is the begining voltage of the saturation plateau, and $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$, which is the end of the saturation plateau. We can sum these results up in a graph. The abscissa is the voltage and the ordinate is either $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$ or the current or the thermal flux of neutrons, depends on what we want to know. On fig.6 and fig.7 we draw various saturation domains, each being limitated by two curves. These curves represent $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}`$ and $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}`$. We wrote a very simple code that permits us to generate the graph that represents $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$ and $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$. The inputs of this code are : $`𝗋_𝖺`$, $`𝗋_𝖼`$, $`𝖫`$ (geometry) and $`\mu _\sigma `$, $`𝖬_𝖿`$ (fissile product). The outputs are three arrays of points : $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝗂𝗇}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$, $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}(𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢})`$ and $`𝖭_\mathrm{𝟢}`$.

## 5 MODEL VERSUS TECHNICAL DATAS

We want to compare the results we get by the use of our model with the characteristic of two industrial fission chambers manufactured by PHOTONIS, imaging sensors : CFUR 43 and CFUF 43. Let us begin by the first one. The table 1 gives us the geometrical and physical features of the chamber.
We put $`𝗋_𝖼`$, $`𝖫`$, pressure and $`\mu _\sigma `$ to their actual value in our code. PHOTONIS, imaging sensors writes in the CFUR43 manual that the optimum polarisation is 150 V. Let us say that we do not know $`𝗋_𝖺`$. We want to find its value with the help of our code. We draw on the following graph (fig. 6) various domain of saturation of CFUR 43 for various value of $`𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺`$ (inter-electrode gap). We can remark that values of $`𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺`$ between 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm fit with the requirement of a 150 V optimum polarisation. That is exactly<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1the exact value of $`𝗋_𝖺`$ is an industrial secret of PHOTONIS the range value given by PHOTONIS, imaging sensors

You could say that it only works for CFUR 43. So let us see it works with another chamber with different size : CFUF 43 (see table 2). The result given by our model can be visualised on fig. 7.

We can also compare the sensitivity of these fission chambers (given by PHOTONIS) with the one calculated with our model. The sensitivity is the ratio of the current delivered by the chamber and the thermal neutron flux

$$𝖲=\frac{𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}}{\mathsf{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗁}}}=\frac{\pi ^\mathrm{𝟤}}{\mathrm{𝟤}}\mathrm{𝖾𝖫𝖨}_\mathrm{𝟢}^𝖼𝗉\frac{\mu _\sigma }{𝖬_𝖴}𝖭_𝖠\sigma _{\mathrm{𝗍𝗁}}(𝗋_𝖼^\mathrm{𝟤}𝗋_𝖺^\mathrm{𝟤})$$

The various results are summarized in table 3. Tabulated and calculated values are in very good agreement. We can deduce from these two figures that an increase of $`(𝗋_𝖼𝗋_𝖺)`$ induces a decrease of the maximum flux detectable. It also induces an increase of the value of the optimum voltage for saturation, and of the width of the saturation plateau.

## 6 MODEL VERSUS SILOE RESULTS

In this part we present the $`\mathsf{1.5}\mathrm{𝗆𝗆}`$ diameter subminiature fission chamber manufactured at the CEA-Cadarache, France (see table 4). We tested two home made $`\mathsf{1.5}\mathrm{𝗆𝗆}`$ diameter chambers : a $`\mathsf{1.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ and a $`\mathsf{4.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber (this is the pressure of argon in the chamber). These experiments were carried out at the CEA/Grenoble (France) at the SILOE facility (experimental nuclear power plant). The aim of these experiments was, first, to make some general empirical observations, and second, to collect enough data to validate our model.

### 6.1 Comparison between a $`\mathsf{1.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ and a $`\mathsf{4.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ fission chamber

We compared the characteristics of both fission chambers in the same thermal flux of about $`\mathsf{3.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{\mathrm{𝟣𝟤}}𝗇.\mathrm{𝖼𝗆}^\mathrm{𝟤}.𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}`$. We can see in fig. 8, as expected, that the saturation current for a $`\mathsf{4.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ fission chamber is about four times greater than the one for a $`\mathsf{1.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber. Actually, the accurate ratio is $`\mathsf{3.5}`$. But we can also notice that the saturation plateau, for a $`\mathsf{1.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber, begins at a voltage lower than the one for a $`\mathsf{4.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber.

Thus, we can deduce from those remarks the following rule : if, for a given neutron flux, the voltage to reach the saturation plateau is too high, we can reduce the argon pressure in the chamber, but as a consequence, we also reduce the saturation current. This rule is verified with our model. On fig. 9 and fig. 10 one can see the superposition of experimental points and of $`𝖵_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖼}}`$ (line representing the beginning of the saturation domain). On these figures, “?” means that we didn’t know the thermal neutron flux at this location in the core. Once more, the model is in good agreement with the experimental data. It predicts with a good accuracy the beginning of the saturation domain.

For a $`\mathsf{1.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber we measured characteristics up to $`\mathrm{𝟤𝟩𝟢}𝖵`$. Above this voltage the current intensity increased very quickly. That is why we did not measure further in order not to destroy the chamber. This is the same reason why we did not carry out the experiment above $`\mathrm{𝟦𝟥𝟢}𝖵`$ for the $`\mathsf{4.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber. We calculated the sensitivity of each chamber with measured data (for $`\mathsf{\Phi }_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗁}}=\mathsf{3.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^{\mathrm{𝟣𝟤}}𝗇.\mathrm{𝖼𝗆}^\mathrm{𝟤}.𝗌^\mathrm{𝟣}`$, the $`\mathsf{1.1}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber gives $`𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}=\mathrm{𝟥𝟩}\mu 𝖠`$ and the $`\mathsf{4.0}\mathrm{𝖻𝖺𝗋}`$ chamber gives $`𝖨_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖺𝗍}}=\mathrm{𝟣𝟤𝟢}\mu 𝖠`$) and with our model. The results are summarized in table 5. The order of magnitude is the same. The discrepancy between measured and calculated values is consistent with the uncertainty of the pressure and geometry.

## 7 CONCLUSION

The model described in this paper is in good agreement with technical data for existing fission chambers CFUR 43 and CFUF 43, and also with experimental data obtained with home made subminiature fission chambers. The model also takes into account the temperature, which is necessary for the use of a fission chamber in the core of a nuclear power plant. Finally, this study revealed two important behaviors of fission chamber : firstly, in order to reduce the value of the minimum voltage of saturation, we can reduce the pressure in the chamber, but, as a consequence, we reduce the sensitivity of the chamber. Secondly, we learned that increasing the inter-electrode gap leads to a decrease of the maximum flux detectable and an increase of the optimum voltage of saturation and of the width of the saturation plateau.