text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Some of the basic questions that have been discussed at MENU-IX, our highly successful symposium which we are concluding this afternoon, are:

“Where are we in the study of Hadron Physics?”

“What has been accomplished recently in this field?”

“Which are the most interesting problems?”

I will endeavor to address these questions. In preparing this report I have been aided by the White Papers of two recent workshops, “Key Issues in Hadron Physics” , and the DNP meeting on Hadronic Physics , and two reports on the subject by James Bjorken .

We are at a momentous time in the short history of Hadronic Physics. There is a growing appreciation for the intellectual challenges presented by QCD in the non-perturbative regime, for the crucial role which it plays in precision tests of the Standard Model (SM), and in the search for New Physics beyond the SM. There is also a growing concern about the lack of a major laboratory for hadron physics with secondary beams. The practitioners of Hadron Physics are only loosely organized and they are seriously underfunded.

Our field of physics may be defined as follows : “Hadron Physics is the physics of the hadronic structures and the strong - interacting vacuum”. It is a subfield of quantum chromodynamics. QCD at short distance, $`d<0.1`$fm, is a perturbative theory of pointlike quarks and gluons. Its validity in this regime is well established, e.g. the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ has been determined in more than a dozen different ways  to an accuracy of a few percent; we also point to the very successful results coming from $`Z`$ and $`W`$ studies. At large distances such as $`>2`$ fm, Hadron Physics is a theory of pions and nucleons and their strange counterparts. It is characterized by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the approximate chiral symmetry of QCD. At intermediate distance occur a rich variety of phenomena including hadron resonances, Regge trajectories, soft diffractions and hadronization. Except for a few simple lattice - gauge calculations, the role of QCD is very limited; it mainly justifies the use of chiral symmetry, chiral perturbation theory, the $`N_c^1`$ expansion, and so forth. The real need for calculations of practical quantities is at intermediate energy. The mass of the proton and neutron have been measured to an accuracy of a few parts in $`10^7`$. The best result of a recent lattice-gauge calculation  for the proton mass in 878$`\pm `$25 MeV. The hadronic corrections are now the main limitation to such interesting Standard-Model tests as the new muon anomalous magnetic moment or $`g2`$ experiment , the measurement of CP violation in the $`2\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay of $`K_L/K_S`$ (the so called $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ experiment) , the unitarity test of the CKM matrix  and precision determinations of $`\alpha _s`$. At this MENU-IX symposium much of the full spectrum of non-perturbative QCD has been under the microscope.

## 2 Highlights from the Rich History of Hadron Physics

It is all together appropriate to have a short recitation of major highlights of our field. They have led to the current models and effective Lagrangians of strong interaction physics, in particular, they led to the creation of our major theory, Quantum Chromodynamics, QCD.

a) One of the oldest concepts in nuclear physics is that of isospin. Its role in the development of the theory of strong interactions is hard to overstate. Isospin was an early attempt to formulate the universality of the strong interaction at a time when only the neutron and proton had been identified. Isospin paved the way for Yang-Mills fields and it helped to usher non-abelian theory into strong interaction physics. Isospin was one of the earliest cases of a broken symmetry. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, we know the origin of isospin breaking: it is the difference in the masses and the electric charges of the up and down quarks. The study of isospin breaking occurring in the baryons and mesons of different spin and parity continues to be of great importance. It is the only way to determine the up-down quark mass difference in various hadronic environments . Isospin violation leads to meson mixing for instance $`\pi ^0\eta `$ and $`\rho \omega `$, also to baryon mixing such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. The modern perspective is that isospin is a subgroup of a larger symmetry, the flavor symmetry of massless QCD.

b) The pion has had and still has a major impact on strong interaction physics, especially on phenomenological models for nucleon-nucleon scattering. The current viewpoint is that the pion is the lightest of the 3 Goldstone bosons that are associated with the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry of a massless QCD.

c) SU(3) symmetry was born out of the wealth of great baryon and meson spectroscopic data. Measurements of SU(3) breaking, for instance the mass difference of the baryon octet and decuplet ground states, are the sole way for obtaining the $`sd`$ quark-mass difference. SU(3) breaking is responsible for multiplet impurity such as due to $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing. SU(3) is a special subgroup of the (broken) flavor symmetry of QCD.

d) Perhaps the most astonishing discovery, which was prompted by abundant new spectroscopic data, was the quark being the ultimate hadronic building block. The quark has several spectacular properties such as a non-integral electric charge and baryon number. A single, free quark cannot be observed because it is captive to the asymptotic freedom condition of QCD.

e) The latest “quantum number” to be discovered is the color charge. Again it was the well established details of baryon spectroscopy, in this case the features of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ (1232) resonance, together with our faith in the validity of Fermi-Dirac statistics which brought this about.

f) QCD is now considered to be the theory of all strong interactions. It has many virtues but its major shortcoming is that it cannot be solved in the non-perturbative regime. Thus, it is helpless when one needs to calculate detailed properties of the proton, neutron and complex nuclei.

## 3 High-Profile Subjects

Problems and topics in hadron physics which are drawing considerable attention these days include the following.

a) What is the mechanism that is responsible for the confinement of the quarks? So far no one has succeeded in deriving the confinement conditions from QCD. This is a major theoretical challenge. Help could be provided by the determination of the regularities that characterize the confined quark systems. Parity doublets dominate the $`N^{}`$ spectra in the mass range 1600-2300 MeV . Do they occur also for heavier masses? Parity doublets are also seen in in the $`\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ families. There is no evidence for parity doublets among the three light-quark meson families. Baryons above a certain mass appear to come in clusters as well. There is currently insufficient data to see if clusters extend to the $`N^{}`$ mass region above 2300 MeV.

An interesting analogy can be made to the confinement of the electron in the hydrogen atom. In this case confinement does not follow from Maxwell’s equations which govern the electromagnetic interactions. Rather, confinement in the case of the hydrogen atom is the consequence of the quantization conditions from quantum mechanics. The major breakthrough to solving this historic confinement puzzle came from the interpretation of the experimentally discovered regularities in the frequencies of the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom known as the Rydberg formula. Maybe the spectra of the excited states of the light baryons could play the same role in helping to understand quark confinement.

b) What is the origin of the mass of the proton? Over 99% of the rest mass of everyone in this room and elsewhere is due to hadronic matter in the form of free and bound protons and neutrons The proton consists of two up and one down quark for the grand total of 18 MeV and similarly for the neutron. Where does the remaining 98% come from? The missing piece is called the quark condensate, it comes from the interaction of the quarks with the vacuum. This brings up the question: “What really is the vacuum?”

c) A fascinating subject is the proposed existence of new forms of matter: hybrids, glueballs, pentaquarks, bound states of mesons and baryons, molecular-type states, etc. There is a lot of speculation about this subject. Our main theory is QCD, the theory of interacting quarks and gluons, so we might expect that confined states have quark and gluon degrees of freedom. There is no example of a certified hybrid baryon, not even a single good candidate . The established baryons all obey SU(3) flavor symmetry which implies that they are $`qqq`$ states. There are a few candidates for a glueball and hybrid in the meson sector. Since there is no free meson target available a unique determination of the spin and parity of a candidate is hard to make and so far no polarized target data, which is very helpful, is available.

The many successes of the simple quark model (QM) are somewhat of a mystery. In the QM all baryons are $`qqq`$ states and they can be classified in SU(3) multiplets. This implies one antisymmetric singlet state and two mixed octets with the same $`J^P`$, plus one related totally symmetric decuplet. All mesons are grouped in nonets with the same $`J^P`$; each one consists of one singlet and 8 octet states. The QM accounts for the main features, though not the details of the masses, widths, decay branching rations, magnetic dipole moments and strength of electromagnetic couplings of all established baryons and mesons. There is as yet no compelling evidence for a gluon degree of freedom. This leads us to the important question: “Where in hadron physics at low energy is the glue?”

Recently, a new large facility was put into operation for the important goal of discovering and subsequently determining the basic properties of the quark-gluon plasma. This new state of matter is high on the list of interests of many a nuclear theorist. It is important also to make the necessary investments to enable the measurements of the properties of hadronic matter at standard density and temperature. As a minimum we need to measure the mass, width, and branching ratios of the excited states of the 6 light baryon and 3 meson families, in particular of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ states below 4 GeV.

d) Broken symmetries play a major role in the theory of the strong interactions. We think here of chiral symmetry, flavor symmetry with its sub areas of isospin and SU(3) symmetry and the U(1) symmetry. There has been considerable speculation on the occurrence of chiral restoration at intermediate energy  and some on U(1) restoration. Do there exist other symmetries which play a role in the structure of the baryons at ordinary density due to a diquark substructure of the baryons ? Are there other clues besides the occurrence of parity doublets? The parity doublets are seen in the baryon spectra above a certain mass which is 1600 MeV for the $`N^{}`$ family. By contrast they do not occur for the meson families. We recall the occurrence of the extraordinary S- wave $`\eta `$ decays of the low lying $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ octet baryons, the $`N`$(1535), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1670) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$(1750). It is of interest to see if this special $`\eta `$-decay feature occurs in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ family as well. The above set of 3 states suggests the existence of a $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ state with $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ and a mass of approximately 1875 MeV.

The first excited state in the $`N^{}`$ family is the $`N(1440)\frac{1}{2}^+`$ and in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ it is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1600)\frac{1}{2}^+`$. They have the same spin/parity as the family’s ground state and they are relatively broad. The same holds for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1600)\frac{3}{2}^+`$, which is a decuplet state. We speculate that this phenomenon applies to the other baryon families as well and urge a search for a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{1}{2}^+`$ octet state of mass $`1680`$ MeV as well as a $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\frac{1}{2}^+`$ octet state around 1800 MeV. Furthermore we anticipate a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{3}{2}^+`$ decuplet state of mass $``$ 1770 MeV, a $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\frac{3}{2}^+`$ decuplet state around $``$ 1900 MeV and a $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{3}{2}^+`$ at $``$ 2050 MeV. All are expected to be relatively broad states.

e) Creation of matter out of energy is another important subject. The Einstein condition:

$$E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4$$

which is incorporated in QCD does not say anything about changing energy into $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs and gluons. It would be quite useful to understand how the features of mass creation such as the simple reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0\pi ^0n`$ come out of QCD. Chiral perturbation theory has been very successful in giving a detailed account of threshold $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction. The next step is the threshold production of the other two Goldstone bosons, the $`K`$ and $`\eta `$. The creation of new particles at low energy is related to a process called hadronization in high energy physics. This is the creation of hadrons by a high energy quark or gluon in jet-type events.

It is desirable to make a systematic study of meson and baryon-antibaryon production using beams of $`\pi ^\pm ,K^\pm ,p,\overline{p},e^{}`$ and $`\gamma `$.

f) The development of effective models for the making of practical calculations of hadron-hadron scattering, resonance decay, and particle production is a mandatory aspect of our field. Which are the most suitable degrees of freedom to use? How complementary are the different models and how well does each model implement the symmetries of QCD? There is a large variety of strong interaction models to choose from: chiral perturbation theory, the $`N_c^1`$ expansion, Skyrmions, meson exchange, nuclear potentials, vector meson dominance, bag models, and so forth.

## 4 Input parameters to QCD and to effective Lagrangians.

QCD needs 3 types of input:

1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, the fundamental strength scale; one can also choose the running coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$. The experimental determination of this input is done using high energy experiments that operate in the perturbative regime of QCD. The present precision achieved is several percent. To go much beyond that one must first learn how to make the hadronic corrections which belong in the domain of non-perturbative QCD. The hadronic corrections are made using a suitable effective Lagrangian. Efforts are underway to use large computers and many new algorithms for lattice-gauge calculations; they still have a long way to go before becoming practical.

2. The masses of the six quarks. Since there are no free quarks the mass determinations are a joint endeavor of theory and experiment. What we know best is the ratio of quark mass differences.

3. The $`\theta `$ parameter of QCD. The upper limit on the electric dipole moment of the neutron provides an upper bound $`\theta 2\times 10^{10}`$. It does not play a significant role in QCD at present.

The effective models needed for calculating strong interaction results in the non-perturbative regime of QCD require a large set of inputs. Many of these are discussed in detail at our MENU symposium and related workshops and conferences such as MESON 2001, Baryon 2001, NSTAR 2001 and PANIC. We mention a few inputs of the many needed:

* a) The meson decay constants: $`F_\pi ,F_\eta ,F_K`$, etc.
* b) The meson-nucleon coupling constants: $`G_{\pi NN}`$, $`G_{\eta NN}`$, etc.
* c) The meson-meson scattering lengths: $`a_{\pi \pi }`$, $`a_{\eta \pi }`$, etc.
* d) Various mixing angles such as the SU(3) singlet-octet mixing angles for the pseudoscalar and vector mesons etc.
* e) Hadron form factors for the proton, neutron and the light mesons.

## 5 Goals of Hadron Physics.

The meeting entitled “Key Issues in Hadronic Physics held in Duck, NC on Nov. 6–9 2001 provided the following useful formulation of the overall objectives of our field .

The primary goals of hadronic physics are to determine the relevant degrees of freedom that govern hadronic phenomena at all scales, to establish the connection of these degrees of freedom to the parameters and fundamental fields of QCD, and to use our understanding of QCD to quantitatively describe a wide array of hadronic phenomena, ranging from terrestrial nuclear physics to the behavior of matter in the early universe. We list below some very specific goals for the near future in our area.

1. The determination of the ratio of the difference and sum of the up and down current-quark masses,

$$R=\frac{m_dm_u}{m_d+m_u}.$$

The ratio eliminates many of the conceptual problems arising from the fact that free quarks have never been observed, despite much searching, and are not expected to be seen as free particles. Experimentally, a nice, clean way to investigate the up-down quark mass difference is by a measurement of the absolute decay rate for the decay $`\eta 3\pi `$. Another good way is by an accurate measurement of the ratio

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta 3\pi ^0).$$

Other ways include 2 special ratios of meson decay modes,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}\eta 2\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{}3\pi ^0),$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}\eta \psi )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\psi ^{}\pi ^0\psi ).$$

2. The determination of the ratio of quark-masses

$$\frac{m_sm_u}{m_d+m_u}.$$

This requires careful measurements of SU(3) flavor breaking such as probed in the Gell-Mann-Okubo octet and Gell-Mann decuplet mass relations. This should be done for different spin/parity baryons.

3. It would be nice to have a full QCD calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference which is known experimentally to an accuracy of a few parts in $`10^7`$.

4. It is time that we measured the magnetic dipole moment of other particles than the ground state octet and decuplet baryons.

5. The determination of $`\pi ^0\eta `$ mixing in different nuclear environments.

6. Accurate measurements of the inputs to the various effective theories such as the meson-nucleon coupling constants, the meson-meson scattering lengths, the decay constants, and so forth.

## 6 The importance of Hadron Physics in testing the Standard Model.

The Standard Model (SM) of electroweak interactions has been subjected to many experimental tests and passed them all with flying colors. Yet, the SM is called a model and not a theory. It suffers from having 17 input parameters which must be extracted from many experiments and this does not include 3 or 6 possible neutrino masses and several mixing angles. The SM does not explain why there are three families of fundamental fermions; parity violation is inserted into the theory by choosing a left-handed doublet and a right-handed singlet of fermions in the input structure; the nature of the spontaneous symmetry breaking that generates the mass of the elementary ferimons is unknown; these are just some of the shortcomings of the SM. New ideas, such as supersymmetry, are going beyond the classical SM. Experiments which explore the limits of the SM, euphemistically called “Searches for New Physics”, are limited by the insufficiently known hadronic corrections. Since there is no analytic solution to QCD in the vast non-perturbative domain, one is forced to rely on effective Lagrangians and on models. Below are a few examples of recent precision measurements in the frontier of the SM, they involve real as well as virtual hadrons. The usefulness of the experiments is limited mainly by the uncertainties in the hadronic corrections.

1. The latest measurement of $`g2`$, the anomalous g-value of the muon magnetic moment, made at BNL, is of sufficient precision to be sensitive to “New Physics” . $`g2`$ calculations have 3 components: a. the pure QED part, which is known to 0.025 $`ppm`$; b. the electroweak part known to 0.03 $`ppm`$; c. the hadronic corrections, which have an uncertainty of 0.57 $`ppm`$, originate in the higher order electromagnetic interactions of leptons arising from virtual hadronic contributions to the photon propagator. An important contribution comes from light-light scattering where the error is due mainly to the poorly known form factors of the intermediate $`\pi ,\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$. This can be improved if new measurements are made of single and particularly of double Dalitz decays such as $`\eta e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

2. An important investigation into the nature of $`CP`$-violation is the determination of the ratio of the direct to indirect $`CP`$\- violation parameters, $`ϵ`$ to $`ϵ^{}`$ . This is done by measuring the ratio of $`K_L^0`$ and $`K_S^0`$ decay into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ at the level $`10^3`$ to $`10^4`$. It is immediately clear that at this level the hadronic corrections originating in the $`sd`$ quark transition and the isospin breaking due to the $`ud`$ quark mass difference are major, they greatly cloud the interpretation of the precision measurements.

3. $`CP`$ violation has finally been seen outside the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system namely in $`B`$ decays at the $`B/\overline{B}`$ and Belle storage  rings. The data are subject to similar type corrections as in $`K`$-decays.

4. The Standard Model requires that the Kobayashi-Maskawa-Cabbibo (CKM) matrix is a unitary matrix. This has not been verified to any desirable precision. The CKM matrix provides a test in which supersymmetry could show up before the LHC turns on. This test requires only accurate values for $`V_{ud}`$ and $`V_{us}`$; $`V_{ub}`$ is very small and is known well enough for the purpose. $`V_{ud}`$ is being measured in super-allowed beta decays, also in neutron decay. $`V_{us}`$ must be obtained from a precision measurement of the decay rate and spectrum of $`K_{e3}`$ decay, $`K^+\pi ^0e^+v`$. The limits are due to the uncertainties in the handling of SU(3) breaking and isospin violation, if the latter is a surprise it is due to $`\pi ^0\eta `$ mixing in the final state.

5. Another area where the hadronic corrections limit the accuracy of the results is the determination of the input parameters to QCD and the SM. The success of perturbative QCD may be illustrated compactly by the internal agreement on the average value of the strong coupling parameter $`\alpha _s`$ obtained in 12 different ways . The average value quoted  is $`\alpha _s(M_z)=0.1181\pm 0.002`$. To do much better one needs to know the masses of the quarks for which one depends on non-perturbative QCD!

Our conclusion is that major advances in the frontier of particle and nuclear physics depend on the advances that are being made in the physics of the non-perturbative sector.

Acknowledgements.

It is my pleasure to express the heartfelt appreciation of the participants for the dedicated efforts in organizing this very successful International Symposium MENU-IX made by Bill Briscoe and Helmut Haberzetll and their dedicated staff. Their countless hours of unheralded work on visitor matters, subsidies, program balance and all the organizational details have paid off handsomely. MENU-IX will be recorded in the annals of hadron-physics history as a four-star conference, the highest rating we can bestow.


format: text

text:
# Delone dynamical systems and associated random operators

## Introduction

The study of disorder is one of the most important issues today. In mathematical models of solid state physics order or disorder are expressed in terms of the hamiltonian that drives the system. The latter operator appears in the Schrödinger equation and its properties are used to describe the electronic properties of the solid under consideration.

Both order and disorder can be cast in the framework of parametrized operators. Let us be a little more precise on that point. We start at one extreme: a perfectly orderered solid, an ideal crystal. Since the atomic positions belong to a lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in this case, the hamiltonian exhibits a corresponding translational symmetry. This symmetry is encoded in the quotient $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the underlying space $`X\{^d,^d\}`$ which leads to a family of operators parametrized by $`X/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As elementary as this observation is, it leads to a number of important consequences. One of these consequences concerns the nature of the spectrum and the dynamics of the hamiltonian: periodic operators (at least under some additional assumptions) have purely absolutely continuous spectrum and only extended states. The other extreme case concerns models that are statistically independent at distant parts of space. Important and well studied are models of Anderson type for which the parameter space is typically of the form $`I^^d`$, $`I`$ a compact interval in $``$. For these models a completely different spectral and dynamical picture is expected with energy regions filled by dense pure point spectrum with localized eigenfunctions and absence of mobility. The key notion is localization, a phenomenon that is rigorously proved in certain cases, see . The models we want to study are situated in between ordered (e.g. periodic) and heavily disordered (e.g. Anderson models) and are used to describe quasicrystals. The discovery of quasicrystals (see the celebrated 1984 paper ) has led to an impressive research activity. However, mathematically rigorous results concerning the spectral theory and dynamics of quasicrystalline Schrödinger operators are somewhat rare except for one dimensional papers.

In the present paper we report on some basic issues concerning the treatment of the multidimensional case. Namely, we describe how Delone dynamical systems of finite type can be used as the relevant parameter spaces. It turns out that there are aspects common with the one dimensional situation: local finiteness and a hierarchical order. There is one important difference as well: a more complicated geometry and the absence of a lattice structure. This leads to complications concerning the parametrized family of hamiltonians that appears. The latter are defined on different Hilbert spaces. The first point we mentioned is reflected in the strong ergodic properties that are the same as in the one dimensional case. The second point leads to the lack of spectral consequences that follow from these ergodic properties.

At this point let us end this general preview and refer the reader to the main text for more details. Instead we go on to relate our results to what can be found in the literature:

Various features of Delone sets and tilings have been considered in the literature. See, e.g.,  and the literature cited there. However, as will be seen in Section 1 below there are certain misunderstandings concerning the problem of defining a suitable topology on the set of Delone sets.

On the other hand, a thorough study of “almost random operators” in an algebraic setting focusing on $`K`$-theory can be found in . This has been taken up by Kellendonk who introduced certain $`C^{}`$-algebras associated to tilings and studied their $`K`$-theory , see  as well. In fact, we have been inspired by these works although they do not cover all the results mentioned here. Our focus is rather on general features of random operators associated to tilings. These features include (almost sure) constancy of the spectrum and its various parts, absence of discrete spectrum and validity of a Shubin trace formula.

The important method here is Connes noncommutative integration theory, which we use to associate a von Neumann algebra to Delone dynamical systems. We should stress that this does not mean to associate in some general fashion a von Neumann algebra to a dynamical system. Rather we use the specific situation at hand as well as the guidance provided by the physical background.

Acknowledgement. It is our pleasure to acknowledge fruitful correspondence with J. Lagarias and B. Solomyak.

## 1. Generalities on Delone sets

The aim of this section is to recall standard concepts from the theory of Delone sets and to introduce a suitable topology on the closed sets in euclidian space.

We will be concerned with Delone sets in $`^d`$. A subset $`\omega `$ of $`^d`$ is called a Delone set if there exist $`0<r,R<\mathrm{}`$ such that $`rxy`$ whenever $`x,y\omega `$ with $`xy`$, and $`B_R(x)\omega \mathrm{}`$ for all $`x^d`$. Here, the Euclidean norm on $`^d`$ is denoted by $``$ and $`B_s(x)`$ denotes the (closed) ball in $`^d`$ around $`x`$ with radius $`s`$. The set $`\omega `$ is then also called an $`(r,R)`$-set. We will be particularly interested in the restrictions of Delone sets to bounded sets. In order to treat these restrictions, we introduce the following definition.

###### Definition 1.1.

(a) A pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$ consisting of a bounded subset $`Q`$ of $`^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }Q`$ finite is called a pattern. The set $`Q`$ is called the support of the pattern.
(b) A pattern $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$ is called a ball pattern if $`Q=B_s(x)`$ with $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for suitable $`x^d`$ and $`s(0,\mathrm{})`$.

The pattern $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,Q_1)`$ is contained in the pattern $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,Q_2)`$ written as $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,Q_1)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,Q_2)`$ if $`Q_1Q_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=Q_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. Diameter, volume etc. of a pattern are defined to be the diameter, volume etc of its support. For patterns $`X_1=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,Q_1)`$ and $`X_2=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,Q_2)`$, we define $`\mathrm{}_{X_1}X_2`$, the number of occurences of $`X_1`$ in $`X_2`$, to be the number of elements in $`\{t^d:\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+t\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,Q_1+tQ_2\}`$.

For further investigation we will have to identify patterns which are equal up to translation. Thus, on the set of patterns we introduce an equivalence relation by setting $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,Q_1)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,Q_2)`$ if and only if there exists a $`t^d`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+t`$ and $`Q_1=Q_2+t`$. In this latter case we write $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,Q_1)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,Q_2)+t`$. The class of a pattern $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$ is denoted by $`[(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)]`$. The notions of diameter, volume, occurence etc. can easily be carried over from patterns to pattern classes.

Every Delone set $`\omega `$ gives rise to a set of pattern classes, $`𝒫(\omega )`$ viz $`𝒫(\omega )=\{Q\omega :Q^d\text{bounded and measurable}\}`$, and to a set of ball pattern classes $`𝒫_B(\omega ))=\{B_s(x)\omega :x\omega ,s>0\}`$. Here we set $`Q\omega =[(\omega Q,Q)]`$.

For $`s(0,\mathrm{})`$, we denote by $`𝒫_B^s(\omega )`$ the set of ball patterns with radius $`s`$; note the relation with $`s`$-patches as considered in . A Delone set is said to be of finite type if for every radius $`s`$ the set $`𝒫_B^s(\omega )`$ is finite. We refer the reader to  for a detailed discussion of Delone sets of finite type.

Next we introduce a suitable topology on the set of closed subsets of $`^d`$. Although it is basically known how this can be done, we will take some care. Actually, it turns out that certain statements in  concerning this issue are, while morally true, not completely correct ;-)

Denote by $`(^d)`$ the set of closed subsets of $`^d`$ and recall that there is a natural action $`T`$ of $`^d`$ on $`(^d)`$ given by $`T_tG=G+t`$. We aim at a topology on $`(^d)`$ that fulfills two requirements: the action $`T`$ should be continuous and two sets that are close to each other with respect to the topology are supposed to be such that their finite parts have small Hausdorff distance. The latter can be defined by

$$d_H(K_1,K_2):=inf(\{ϵ>0:K_1U_ϵ(K_2)K_2U_ϵ(K_1)\}\{1\}),$$

where $`K_1,K_2`$ are compact subsets of a metric space $`(X,d)`$ and $`U_ϵ(K)`$ denotes the open $`ϵ`$-neighborhood around $`K`$. The extra $`1`$ is to deal with the empty set that is included in $`𝒦(X):=\{KX:K\text{ compact}\}`$. It is wellknown that $`(𝒦(X),d_H)`$ is complete if $`(X,d)`$ is complete and compact if $`(X,d)`$ is compact. Quite often, the Hausdorff distance is defined between nonvoid compact sets only. The way we defined it, $`\mathrm{}`$ is added as an isolated point. For our purposes later on it will be important to have the empty set at our disposal and it will no longer be an isolated point.

A natural first attempt to define a suitable topology goes as follows. Abbreviate $`B_r(0)=:B_r`$ and $`𝒦(B_r):=𝒦_r`$ which is a compact metric space by what we just mentioned. We call the initial topology on $`(^d)`$, induced by the restriction mappings

$$J_R:(^d)𝒦_R,FFB_R,R>0$$

the topology of local Hausdorff convergence. Of course this topology satisfies the second requirement listed above. However a serious problem connected with that topology comes from the fact, that $`F`$ and $`G`$ might be closer in Hausdorff distance than $`FB_k`$ and $`GB_k`$ as two relatively close portions of $`F`$ and $`G`$ might just lie inside respectively outside the ball $`B_R`$. Put differently, the restriction $`FFB_r`$ is by no way a contraction from $`𝒦_R`$ to $`𝒦_r`$. In particular, $`T`$ does not act continuously. Consider, e.g., $`F:=()`$; for any $`t(0,1)`$ we get that

$$d_H((T_tF)B_k,FB_k)=\mathrm{max}\{|t|,1|t|\}.$$

Consequently, for any $`k3`$ and $`t(0,1)`$, $`T_tFV_k(F)`$. To circumvent this lamentable fact we introduce

$$d_k(F,G):=inf(\{ϵ>0:FB_kU_ϵ(G)GB_kU_ϵ(F)\}\{1\}),$$

a measure for the distance of $`F`$ and $`G`$ that is monotone in the cutoff parameter $`k`$, i.e., $`d_k(F,G)d_{k+1}(F,G)`$. Moreover, $`d_k(F,G)d_H(FB_k,GB_k)`$. Unfortunately, the $`d_k`$ do not satisfy the triangle inequality. To see this, consider, in $``$, the case $`k=1`$ and the sets $`F=\{1ϵ\},G=\{1+ϵ\},H=\mathrm{}`$, leading to $`d_k(F,G)=2ϵ`$, $`d_k(G,H)=0`$ but $`d_k(F,H)=1`$ (if $`ϵ`$ is small enough).

We use them to define a topology coarser than the topology of local Hausdorff convergence via the neighborhood basis

$$U_{ϵ,k}(F):=\{G(^d):d_k(F,G)ϵ\},ϵ>0,k;$$

we call the corresponding topology $`\tau _{nat}`$ the natural topology. By the definition of $`d_k`$ it is clear that $`d_k(T_tF,F)|t|`$ for any $`F(^d),t^d`$ so that translations are continuous. Fortunately this topology has nice compactness properties as seen in:

###### Theorem 1.2.

$`(^d)`$ endowed with the natural topology $`\tau _{nat}`$ is compact.

###### Proof.

Let $`(F_\iota )_{\iota I}`$ be a net in $`(^d)`$. We use that $`𝒦_{k+\frac{1}{2}}`$ is a compact metric space for every $`k`$. Therefore, $`(F_\iota B_{k+\frac{1}{2}})_{\iota I}`$ has an accumulation point $`C_{k+\frac{1}{2}}`$ in $`𝒦_{k+\frac{1}{2}}`$ for every $`k`$ and we find a subsequence converging in the Hausdorff metric. By a standard diagonal argument we can arrange a common subsequence, call it $`(F_m)_m`$, such that $`(F_mB_{k+\frac{1}{2}})_m`$ converges to $`C_{k+\frac{1}{2}}`$ for every $`k`$;

$$C:=\underset{k}{}C_{k+\frac{1}{2}}$$

is a good candidate for the limit of the $`(F_m)`$ in the natural topology. Let us first note that

$$CB_k=C_{k+\frac{1}{2}}B_k().$$

(This is clear but it is here that the $`\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}`$ in the definitions above gets important. It is not true in general that $`CB_{k+\frac{1}{2}}=C_{k+\frac{1}{2}}B_{k+\frac{1}{2}}`$. We will meet this kind of effect again later when discussing the lack of compactness for the topology of local Hausdorff convergence in the paragraph following the present proof.) From $`()`$ it follows that $`C`$ is closed. We have to show that

$$d_k(F_m,C)0\text{ as }m\mathrm{}$$

for any $`k`$; so fix $`k`$. If

$$1>\delta _m>d_H(F_mB_{k+\frac{1}{2}},C_{k+\frac{1}{2}})$$

we get that

$$CB_kC_{k+\frac{1}{2}}U_{\delta _m}(F_mB_{k+\frac{1}{2}})$$

by definition of the Hausdorff metric. Conversely,

$$F_mB_kF_mB_{k+\frac{1}{2}}U_{\delta _m}(C_{k+\frac{1}{2}})U_{\delta _m}(C).$$

Put together, we get

$$d_k(F_m,C)\delta _m$$

for $`\delta _m>d_H(F_mB_{k+\frac{1}{2}},C_{k+\frac{1}{2}})`$, i.e.,

$$d_k(F_m,C)d_H(F_mB_{k+\frac{1}{2}},C_{k+\frac{1}{2}})$$

and the latter tends to $`0`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$. Thus we have proved that every net in $`(^d)`$ has a converging subsequence. ∎

Note that, interestingly, no additional properties are needed for compactness. Of course, this result immediately gives compactness of certain subsets of the set of all Delone sets, e.g. compactness of the union over $`R`$ of the $`(r,R)`$-sets for any fixed value of $`r`$.

One might think that the topology of local Hausdorff leads to a compact space as well, since in this topology, $`(^d)`$ is considered as a subset of the product of the $`𝒦_R`$, which is compact by Tychonovs theorem. However, it is not closed, as seen for $`F_n:=\{1+\frac{1}{n}\}`$; of course, $`R=1`$ is the crucial value. This latter sequence also shows directly that the topology of local Hausdorff convergence is not compact and not too natural either ;-)

We will also use the natural topology to define a topology on tiling spaces in a quite general setting.

Let us note in passing that the metric $`\rho `$ proposed in  as well as the metric in  do not satisfy the triangle inequality and that these metrics are restricted to Delone sets. This is again due to the phenomenon alluded to above, namely that restricting sets does not make the Hausdorff distance smaller. See, however, , in which a metric on the set of Delone sets is constructed. A discussion in a more general framework can be found in , where the author constructs a topology on the set of closed discrete subsets of a locally compact $`\sigma `$-compact space. In the case of $`^d`$ this topology coincides with the restriction of the above given natural topology.

To settle the issue of metrizability of the natural topology we next mention an alternative approach. The method we are going to outline now has most definitely been pointed out to us by someone else. Unfortunately, we were not able to find out by whom.

We use the stereographic projection to identify points $`x^d\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in the one-point-compactification of $`^d`$ with the corresponding points $`\stackrel{~}{x}𝕊^d`$. Clearly, the latter denotes the $`d`$-dimensional unit sphere $`𝕊^d=\{\xi ^{d+1}:\xi =1\}`$. Now $`𝕊^d`$ carries the euclidean metric $`\rho `$. Since the unit sphere is compact and complete, we can associate a complete metric $`\rho _H`$ on $`𝒦(𝕊^d)`$ by what we said above.

For $`F(^d)`$ write $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ for the corresponding subset of $`𝕊^d`$ and define

$$\rho (F,G):=\rho _H(\stackrel{~}{F\{\mathrm{}\}},\stackrel{~}{G\{\mathrm{}\}})\text{ for }F,G(^d).$$

Although this constitutes a slight abuse of notation it makes sense since $`\stackrel{~}{F\{\mathrm{}\}},\stackrel{~}{G\{\mathrm{}\}}`$ are compact in $`𝕊^d`$ provided $`F,G`$ are closed in $`^d`$.

We have the following result:

###### Proposition 1.3.

The metric $`\rho `$ above induces the natural topology on $`(^d)`$.

###### Proof.

An explicit calculation of the stereographic projection shows that

(1)
$$\rho (\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})\frac{42}{x}$$

for $`x^d`$ as well as

(2)
$$\rho (\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y})2xy.$$

We want to show that the identity $`id:((^d),\tau _{nat})((^d),\rho )`$ is continuous. Since $`((^d),\tau _{nat})`$ is a compact space this implies that $`id:((^d),\tau _{nat})((^d),\rho )`$ is in fact a homeomorphism. To prove the desired continuity, fix $`F(^d)`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$. We have to find a basic neighborhood $`U_{\delta ,k}`$ that is contained in the $`\epsilon `$\- ball around $`F`$ (with respect to $`\rho `$, of course). To this end choose $`k`$ such that $`42/k<\epsilon `$ and $`\delta =\epsilon /2`$.

This is a good choice; in fact, let $`GU_{\delta ,k}`$. Combining $`FB_kU_\delta (G)`$ with (2) we get that

(3)
$$\stackrel{~}{FB_k}U_\epsilon ^\rho (\stackrel{~}{G}),$$

where the superscript $`\rho `$ indicates the underlying metric space. By (1) and the choice of $`k`$ we know that

(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{F(B_k^c\{\mathrm{}\}})U^\rho _\epsilon (\stackrel{~}{G\{\mathrm{}\}}).$$

Relations (3) and (4) together yield that

$$\stackrel{~}{F\{\mathrm{}\}}U_\epsilon ^\rho (\stackrel{~}{G\{\mathrm{}\}}).$$

The corresponding relation with $`F`$ and $`G`$ interchanged follows in the same way so that

$$\rho _H(\stackrel{~}{F\{\mathrm{}\}},(\stackrel{~}{G\{\mathrm{}\}})\epsilon .$$

This proves the asserted continuity. ∎

Next, we define Delone dynamical systems, following  and single out some important properties:

###### Definition 1.4.

(a) Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a set of Delone sets. The pair $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is called a Delone dynamical system (DDS) if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is invariant under the shift $`T`$ and closed in the natural topology.
(b) A DDS $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is said to be of finite type if $`_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}P_B^s(\omega )`$ is finite for every $`s>0`$.
(c) Let $`0<r,R<\mathrm{}`$ be given. A DDS $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is said to be an $`(r,R)`$-system if every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an $`(r,R)`$-set.
(d) The set $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of pattern classes associated to a DDS $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined by $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Omega })=_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}𝒫(\omega )`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

(a) Whenever $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is a Delone dynamical system, there exists an $`R>0`$ with $`B_R(x)\omega \mathrm{}`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and every $`x^d`$. This follows easily as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is closed and invariant under the action of $`T`$.
(b) Every DDSF is an $`(r,R)`$-system for suitable $`0<r,R<\mathrm{}`$.
(c) Let $`\omega `$ be an $`(r,R)`$-set and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega `$ be the closure of $`\{T_t\omega :t^d\}`$ in $`(^d)`$ with respect to the natural topology. Then $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega ,T)`$ is an $`(r,R)`$-system.

For a DDSF, there is a simple way to describe convergence in the natural topology. This is shown in the following lemma. We omit the straightforward proof.

###### Lemma 1.6.

If $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is a DDSF then a sequence $`(\omega _n)`$ converges to $`\omega `$ in the natural topology if and only if there exists a sequence $`(t_n)`$ converging to $`0`$ such that for every $`L>0`$ there is an $`n_0`$ with $`(\omega _n+t_n)B_L=\omega B_L`$ for $`nn_0`$.

We will need standard notions from the theory of dynamical systems. Namely, a DDS is called minimal if every orbit is dense. It is called uniquely ergodic if there exists exactly one $`T`$-invariant probability measure. It is called aperiodic if $`T_t`$ does not have a fixed point for any $`t0`$.

For $`s>0`$ and $`Q^d`$, we denote by $`_sQ`$ the set of points in $`^d`$ whose distance to the boundary of $`Q`$ is less than $`s`$. A sequence $`(Q_n)`$ of bounded subsets of $`^d`$ is called a van Hove sequence if $`|Q_n|^1|_sQ_n|0,n0`$ for every $`s>0`$.

###### Theorem 1.7.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ be a DDSF. Then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is uniquely ergodic if and only if, for every pattern class $`P`$ the frequency $`lim_n\mathrm{}|Q_n|^1\mathrm{}_P(\omega Q_n)`$ exists uniformly in $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ for every van Hove sequence $`Q_n`$.

###### Remark 1.8.

After a first version of the present paper was on the web, B. Solomyak kindly informed us of the work  by Lee, Moody and Solomyak. As , Theorem 2.7 the reader can find a result analogous to the preceding Theorem.

###### Proof.

For the “if” part we can refer to , Theorem 3.3. There, it is additionally assumed that the tiling dynamical system has the local isomorphism property. The latter is only used, however, to guarantee that frequencies are strictly positive. We will describe how to pass from Delone dynamical systems to tilings in detail later.

For the “only if” part we construct a continuous function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that essentially counts occurences of a fixed pattern. Here are the details:

Fix $`0<r<R`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an $`(r,R)`$-system. We fix a pattern $`P=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_P,Q_P)`$ with $`0\mathrm{\Lambda }_P`$ and diameter $`R_P`$. Moreover, we choose an auxiliary function $`gC_c(^d)`$, $`g0`$ with support contained in $`B_{\frac{r}{42}}`$ and normalized to $`g(x)𝑑x=1`$. With the help of $`g`$ we define

$$f_P:\mathrm{\Omega },f_P(\omega )=g(t)\text{ iff }Q_P(\omega +t)=P$$

(where such a $`t`$ is uniquely determined in case $`g(t)0`$) and $`0`$ if no translate of $`P`$ appears in $`\omega `$. We consider all the points of $`\omega `$ at which a copy of $`P`$ is centered, namely

$$S_\omega :=\{s_n^d:Q_P(\omega +s_n)=P\}$$

and remark that the distinct points of $`S_\omega `$ have distance at least $`r`$ since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an $`(r,R)`$-system. Using the set $`S_\omega `$, we get

$$f_P(\omega +t)=\underset{n}{}g(s_nt)$$

and, therefore,

$`{\displaystyle _Q}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle _Q}g(s_nt)𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{B_{\frac{r}{42}(s_n)}Q\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle _Q}g(s_nt)𝑑t`$
Thus, if we let

$$Q^{}:=\{yQ:y+B_{R_P+r}Q\},Q^+:=U_r(Q),$$

we get that

$$\mathrm{}_PQ\omega =\mathrm{\#}\{n:s_n+Q_PQ\}$$

along with the inequalities

$`{\displaystyle _Q^{}}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\#}\{n:B_{\frac{r}{42}}(s_n)Q^{}\mathrm{}\}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}_PQ\omega =\mathrm{\#}\{n:s_n+Q_PQ\}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\#}\{n:B_{\frac{r}{42}}(s_n)Q^+\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{Q^+}}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t.`$
Now, take a van Hove sequence $`(Q_n)`$. Then, since $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is uniquely ergodic,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|Q_n|}_{Q_n^{}}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|Q_n|}_{Q_n}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t=_\mathrm{\Omega }f_P(\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega ),$$

where $`\mu `$ is the unique normalized invariant measure. Similarly,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|Q_n|}_{Q_n^+}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t=_\mathrm{\Omega }f_P(\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega ).$$

Using the inequality above, we now find that

$$\frac{1}{|Q_n|}_{Q_n^{}}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t\frac{1}{|Q_n|}\mathrm{}_PQ_n\frac{1}{|Q_n|}_{Q_n^+}f_P(\omega +t)𝑑t$$

and consequently that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|Q_n|}\mathrm{}_PQ_n=_\mathrm{\Omega }f_P(\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega )$$

uniformly in $`\omega `$.∎

In order to take advantage of the analysis from the theory of tilings, let us now relate Delone dynamical systems and tiling dynamical systems. To do so, we start with a slight generalization of what can, e.g., be found in . For the readers convenience we will repeat all the necessary definitions. We follow mainly  (see  as well) although we rephrase some notions slightly.

A tile is just a set $`T`$ that agrees with the closure of its interior. A tiling $`S`$ is a countable family $`S=(T_n)`$ of tiles with disjoint interiors covering the whole space $`^d`$. It is sometimes very useful to supply tiles with an additional mark or decoration. To do so, consider a finite set $`𝔸`$ called the alphabet or the set of decorations. An $`𝔸`$-decorated tiling $`S`$ consists of a countable family $`S=((T_n,a_n))_n`$ such that $`(T_n)`$ is a tiling and the decorations of two tiles agree only if the tiles are translates of each other. Following  we also call $`a_n`$ the type of the tile $`T_n`$.

In order to describe a convenient topology for tilings let us first ignore decorations. Then, the natural topology provides a suitable topology. In fact, let us call

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(S):=_nT_n$$

the shape of the tiling $`S=(T_n)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the shape map acting from the set $`𝒯`$ of all tilings to $`(^d)`$. We call the initial topology with respect to the shape map the natural topology on $`𝒯`$. On the space of $`𝔸`$-decorated tilings $`𝒯_𝔸`$ we define the shape map as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝔸:𝒯_𝔸(^d)^𝔸,((T_n,a_n))(\{T_n:a_n=a\})_{a𝔸}.$$

Note that in the case of nonconnected tiles the shape map might loose some information. This won’t bother us in what follows, since we are dealing with convex polygonal tiles.

###### Definition 1.9.

(a) Let $`X𝒯_𝔸`$ be a set of $`𝔸`$-decorated tilings. The pair $`(X,T)`$ is called an $`𝔸`$-tiling dynamical system, $`𝔸`$-TDS, if $`X`$ is invariant under the shift $`T=(T_t)_{t^d}`$ and closed in the natural topology.

(b) An $`𝔸`$-TDS $`(X,T)`$ is said to be of finite type, if there is a finite set of tiles $`P`$ such that every tile from one of the tilings in $`X`$ is the translate of one of the tiles in $`P`$.

Next we describe the Voronoi construction. It enables us to pass from Delone dynamical to decorated tiling dynamical systems. See the discussion in , Section 2 as well. There, the reader will also find an account of the Delone tesselation, a possibility to pass from Delone sets to tilings that goes back to Delone (Delaunay), .

Let $`\omega ^d`$ be a Delone set; for $`x\omega `$ define

$`T(x,\omega )`$ $`:=`$ $`\{y^n:d(x,y)d(y,\omega )\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{y^n:xyzy(z\omega )\}.`$
Clearly, $`T(x,\omega )`$ is the convex hull of finitely many points, a polygon, called the Voronoi cell of $`\omega `$ around $`x`$. If $`\omega `$ is an $`(r,R)`$-set, it follows that

$$B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)T(x,\omega )B_{2R}(x).$$

Moreover,

$$S_\omega :=(T(x,\omega ))_{x\omega }$$

defines a tiling of $`^d`$. In this way, we get a TDS $`X_\mathrm{\Omega }=\{S_\omega :\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\}`$. It is clear that

$$V:\mathrm{\Omega }X_\mathrm{\Omega },\omega S_\omega $$

is continuous and respects translations.

Unfortunately, $`V`$ doesn’t need to be injective. In fact, you will easily find different periodic sets (e.g. $``$ and $`(\frac{1}{4}+2)(\frac{3}{4}+2)`$) that lead to the same Voronoi tiling. However, decorations can help to recover the original Delone set in the DDSF case. In fact, starting from a DDSF $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ define

$$𝔸:=\{(\omega B_{2R}(x)x,T(x,\omega )x)=:a(x,\omega ):\omega \mathrm{\Omega },x\omega \},$$

which is a finite set if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of finite type. Define

$$V:\mathrm{\Omega }X_\mathrm{\Omega }^𝔸,V_\omega :=((T(x,\omega ),a(x,\omega ))_{x\omega }.$$

It is not hard to see that we can reconstruct $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from $`X_\mathrm{\Omega }^𝔸`$ and that $`V`$ is an isomorphism of dynamical systems.

Therefore, we can use analogs for Delone dynamical systems of the results from  on ergodic properties of tiling dynamical systems.

For a quite different approach to the topology on the set of Delone sets we refer to , where Delone sets are identified with the sum of delta measures sitting at the points of the Delone set. Then one has the w-topology on the set of measures at ones disposal, providing good compactness properties. The approach presented here has the advantage that a topology is induced on the set of closed sets. That can be used to define a topology on (decorated) tilings via the shape map.

## 2. Groupoids and non commutative integration theory

In this section we introduce groupoids and basic notions from Connes non-commutative integration theory.

We will be concerned with several locally compact topological spaces. Given such a space $`Z`$, we denote the set of continuous functions on $`Z`$ with compact support by $`C_c(Z)`$. The support of a function in $`C_c(Z)`$ is denoted by $`\text{supp}(f)`$. The topology gives rise to the Borel-$`\sigma `$-algebra. The measurable nonnegative functions with respect to this $`\sigma `$-algebra will be denoted by $`^+(Z)`$. The measures on $`Z`$ will be denoted by $`(Z)`$.

A set $`𝒢`$ together with a partially defined associative multiplication $`:𝒢^2𝒢\times 𝒢𝒢`$, and an inversion $`1:𝒢𝒢`$ is called a groupoid if the following holds:

* $`(g^1)^1=g`$ for all $`g𝒢`$,
* If $`g_1g_2`$ and $`g_2g_3`$ exist, then $`g_1g_2g_3`$ exists as well,
* $`g^1g`$ exists always and $`g^1gh=h`$, whenever $`gh`$ exists,
* $`hh^1`$ exists always and $`ghh^1=g`$, whenever $`gh`$ exists.

A groupoid is called topological groupoid if it carries a topology making inversion and multiplication continuous. Here, of course, $`𝒢\times 𝒢`$ carries the product topology and $`𝒢^2𝒢\times 𝒢`$ is equipped with the induced topology.

A given groupoid $`𝒢`$ gives rise to some standard objects: The subset $`𝒢^0=\{gg^1g𝒢\}`$ is called the set of units. For $`g𝒢`$ we define its range $`r(g)`$ by $`r(g)=gg^1`$ and its source by $`s(g)=g^1g`$. Moreover, we set $`𝒢^\omega =r^1(\{\omega \})`$ for any unit $`\omega 𝒢^0`$. One easily checks that $`gh`$ exists if and only if $`r(h)=s(g)`$.

By a standard construction we can assign a groupoid $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ to a Delone dynamical system. As a set $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is just $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times ^n`$. The multiplication is given by $`(\omega ,x)(\omega x,y)=(\omega ,x+y)`$ and the inversion is given by $`(\omega ,x)^1=(\omega x,x)`$. The groupoid operations can be visualized by considering an element $`(\omega ,x)`$ as an arrow $`\omega x\stackrel{x}{}\omega `$. Multiplication then corresponds to concatenation of arrows; inversion corresponds to reversing arrows.

Apparently this groupoid $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is a toplogical groupoid when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is equipped with the topology of the previous section and $`^n`$ carries the usual topology.

The groupoid $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ acts naturally on a certain topological space $`𝒳`$. This space and the action of $`𝒢`$ on it are of crucial importance in the sequel. The space $`𝒳`$ is given by

$$𝒳=\{(\omega ,x)𝒢:x\omega \}𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T).$$

In particular, it inherits a topology form $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$. Two features of the topology are given in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.1.

(a) $`𝒳𝒢`$ is closed.

(b) Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ be an $`(r,R)`$-system and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`x\omega `$ be arbitrary. Then there exist a neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a continuous function $`h:UB_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)`$ with $`\omega ^{}B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)=\{h(\omega ^{})\}`$ for every $`\omega ^{}U`$.

###### Proof.

(a) Let $`((\omega _\iota ,x_\iota )_{\iota I})`$ be a net in $`𝒳`$ converging to $`(\omega ,x)𝒢`$. Thus, $`\omega _\iota \omega `$ and $`x_\iota x`$ and it remains to show $`x\omega `$. Assume the contrary, i.e. $`x\omega `$. As $`\omega `$ is closed, there exists a $`\delta >0`$ with $`B_\delta (x)\omega =\mathrm{}`$. Thus, $`\omega _\iota \omega `$ implies $`\omega _\iota B_{\frac{\delta }{2}}(x)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i`$ large. But this is a contradiction to $`x_\iota x`$.

(b) By the definition of the topology, there exists a neighbourhood $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ of $`\omega `$ with $`\omega ^{}B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)\mathrm{}`$ for every $`\omega ^{}\stackrel{~}{U}`$. As $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is an $`(r,R)`$-system, $`\omega ^{}B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)`$ consists of only one element. Denoting this element by $`h(\omega ^{})`$, we get a function $`h:\stackrel{~}{U}B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)`$. Continuity of $`h`$ is now a direct consequence of the definition of the topology on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.2.

Note that the proof of part (a) does not use that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a set of Delone sets. Thus, the corresponding statement remains valid whenever $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a subset of $`(^d)`$ which is closed in the natural topology.

###### Corollary 2.3.

$`C_c(𝒳)=\{f|_𝒳:fC_c(𝒢)\}`$.

###### Proof.

As $`𝒳`$ is closed in $`𝒢`$ be the foregoing proposition, this follows by standard arguments involving Uryson’s Lemma. ∎

A key feature of $`𝒳`$ is its bundle structure. More precisely, we have a continuous map $`p:𝒳\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`p((\omega ,x))=\omega `$ making $`𝒳`$ into a bundle over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with fibres $`𝒳^\omega =p^1(\omega )=\{(\omega ,p):p\omega )\}\omega ^n`$.

Now, we can discuss the action of $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒳`$. Every $`g=(\omega ,x)`$ gives rise to a map $`J(g):𝒳^{s(g)}𝒳^{r(g)}`$, $`J(g)(\omega x,p)=(\omega ,p+x)`$. A simple calculation shows that $`J(g_1g_2)=J(g_1)J(g_2)`$ and $`J(g^1)=J(g)^1`$, whenever $`s(g_1)=r(g_2)`$. Thus, $`𝒳`$ is an $`𝒢`$-space (see ). These $`𝒢`$-spaces are important objects in Connes non-commutative integration theory. They give rise to random variables. More precisely we have the following definition.

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ be an $`(r,R)`$-system.

(a) A choice of measures $`\beta :\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒳)`$ is called a positive random variable with values in $`𝒳`$ if the map $`\omega \beta ^\omega (f)`$ is measurable for every $`f^+(𝒳)`$, $`\beta ^\omega `$ is supported on $`𝒳^\omega `$, i.e., $`\beta ^\omega (𝒳𝒳^\omega )=0`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\beta `$ satisfies the following invariance condition

$$_{𝒳^{s(g)}}f(J(g)p)𝑑\beta ^{s(g)}(p)=_{𝒳^{r(g)}}f(q)𝑑\beta ^{r(g)}(q)$$

for all $`g𝒢`$ and $`f^+(𝒳^{r(g)})`$.

(b) A map $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times C_c(𝒳)`$ is called a complex random variable if there exist an $`n`$, positive random variables $`\beta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`\lambda _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ with $`\beta ^\omega (f)=_{i=1}^k\beta _i^\omega (f)`$.

We are now heading towards introducing and studying a special random variable. This variable is quite important. It will give rise to the $`\mathrm{}^2`$-spaces on which the Hamiltonians act. Later we will see that these Hamiltonians also induce random variables. We will need some information on the continuous functions on $`𝒳`$.

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an $`(r,R)`$-system.

(a) Let $`gC_c(𝒳)`$ be given. Then, the function $`\alpha (g):\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\alpha ^\omega (g)=_{p\omega }g(\omega ,p)`$ belongs to $`C_c(𝒳)`$.

(b) For $`g^+(𝒳)`$ the function $`\alpha (g):\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\alpha ^\omega (g)=_{p\omega }g(\omega ,p)`$ is measurable.

###### Proof.

(a) We fix $`\omega _0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ arbitrary and show continuity of $`\alpha (g)`$ at $`\omega _0`$. As $`g`$ has compact support, there exists $`s>0`$, with $`g(\omega ,p)=0`$ whenever $`pB_s`$. Apparently, $`\omega _0B_{s+r}`$ is finite. Thus, there exists $`k`$ and pairwise different $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k^d`$ with $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}=\omega _0B_{s+r}`$. By Proposition 2.1, there exist $`\stackrel{~}{U}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\omega _0\stackrel{~}{U}`$ and $`h_i:\stackrel{~}{U}B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x_i)`$ continuous with $`\{h_i(\omega )\}=B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x_i)\omega `$ for every $`\omega \stackrel{~}{U}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. As $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is an $`(r,R)`$-system, the $`B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x_i)`$ are pairwise disjoint. By definition of the topology on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we can find $`U\stackrel{~}{U}`$ such that

$$\omega B_s\{h_i(\omega ):i=1,\mathrm{},k\}\text{for all }\omega U\text{ }.$$

(Note that the ball appearing on the left hand side of this inclusion has radius strictly less than $`r+s`$.) Thus, for $`\omega U`$, the following holds

$$\alpha (g)(\omega )=\underset{p\omega B(0,s)}{}g(\omega ,p)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}g(\omega ,h_i(\omega ))$$

and the desired continuity follows. It is not hard to see that $`\alpha (g)`$ has compact support.

(b) This follows from (a) by standard monotone class arguments. ∎

As apparently $`\alpha ^\omega (h)=\alpha ^{\omega +x}(h(x))`$, we immediately have the following corollary from part (b) of the Proposition.

###### Corollary 2.6.

The map $`\alpha :\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒳)`$, $`\alpha ^\omega (f)=_{p\omega }f(p)`$ is a random variable with values in $`𝒳`$.

Now, let $`\mu `$ be a measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By (b) of Proposition 2.5, we see that $`(\mu \alpha )(g)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha ^\omega (g)𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ exists for every $`gC_c(𝒳)`$. The following is the key lemma on integration of random variables.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`\mu `$ be $`T`$-invariant (i.e. $`\mu (f)=\mu (f(t))`$ for every $`t^n`$).

(a) Let $`\beta `$ be a nonnegative random variable. Then $`_\mathrm{\Omega }\beta ^\omega (F(\omega ,))𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ does not depend on $`F^+(𝒳)`$ provided $`F`$ satisfies $`F((\omega +t,x+t)dt=1`$ for every $`(\omega ,x)𝒳`$.

(b) Let $`\beta `$ be an arbitrary random variable. $`_\mathrm{\Omega }\beta ^\omega (F(\omega ,))𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ does not depend on $`F^+(𝒳)C_c(𝒳)`$ provided $`F`$ satisfies $`F((\omega +t,x+t)dt=1`$ for every $`(\omega ,x)𝒳`$.

###### Proof.

(a) This follows from  (see  for a discussion as well).

(b) This is an immediate consequence of (a). ∎

It is instructive to consider a special instance of the lemma. Namely, consider $`fC_c(^n)`$. Apparently $`f`$ gives rise to a function $`F_fC_c(𝒳)`$ given by $`F_f((\omega ,x))=f(x)`$. Now, let $`\mu `$ be an invariant measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\beta `$ a random variable. Then, the invariance properties of $`\mu `$ and $`\beta `$ show that the functional $`I:C_c(^n)`$, $`I(f)=(\mu \alpha )(F_f)`$ is translation invariant and positive. By uniqueness of the Haarmeasure on $`^n`$, we infer that there exists a constant $`\lambda (\beta )`$ with $`\mu \beta (F_f)=\lambda (\beta )_^nf(t)𝑑t`$. This shows, in particular, that the integral $`_\mathrm{\Omega }\beta ^\omega (F_f(\omega ,))𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ does not depend on $`f0`$ provided $`f`$ satisfies $`_^nf(t)𝑑t=1`$.

Let an invariant measure $`\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the random variable $`\alpha `$ as above be given. We can then introduce the space $`L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )`$. The bundle structure of $`𝒳`$ and of $`\alpha `$ suggest, that this space can be considered as a direct integral. This means we aim at giving sense to the equation

(5)
$$L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )=_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega ).$$

As the fibres in this direct integral are not constant, we need to be careful about the notion of measurability. More precisely, we need to introduce a set $`𝒱`$ of functions $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`f(\omega )\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, satsifying the following properties

* $`𝒱`$ is a vectorspace under the the obvious operations (i.e. $`(f+g)(\omega )=f(\omega )+g(\omega )`$ and $`(\lambda f)(\omega )=\lambda f(\omega )`$).
* $`\omega f(\omega ),g(\omega )_\omega `$ is measurable for arbitrary $`f,g𝒱`$. Here, $`,_\omega `$ is the inner product on $`\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$.
* If $`f`$ is a function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`f(\omega )\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\omega f(\omega ),g(\omega )_\omega `$ measurable for every $`g𝒱`$, then $`f`$ belongs to $`𝒱`$ as well.
* There exists a countable set $`D𝒱`$ such that the set $`\{d(\omega ):dD\}`$ is total in $`\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Such a set will be called a measurable structure on the family $`(\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega ))_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Note, that the condition $`(M)`$ says that the functions in $`𝒱`$ have a certain measurability property. Condition $`(S)`$ is a maximality assumption.

Given the special structure of $`𝒳`$, we can actually identify functions $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with values in $`\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$ with functions on $`𝒳`$. This will be done tacitely in the sequel. There are at least three good canditates for measurable structures. They are given as follows:

* The set $`𝒱_1`$ consists of all $`f:𝒳`$ which are measurable and satisfy $`f(\omega ,)\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$
* The set $`𝒱_2`$ consists of all $`f:𝒳`$ such that $`f(\omega ,)\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$, for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\omega f(\omega ,),F(\omega ,)_\omega `$ is measurable for all $`FC_c(𝒳)`$.
* Finally, the set $`𝒱_3`$ is given by all $`f:𝒳`$ such that $`f(\omega ,)\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$, for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\omega f(\omega ,),F(\omega ,)_\omega `$ is measurable for all $`FC_c(𝒢)`$.

It is not too hard to check that these are all measurable structures. In fact, they are even equal. This is shown next.

###### Proposition 2.8.

$`𝒱_1=𝒱_2=𝒱_3`$.

###### Proof.

The equality of $`𝒱_2`$ and $`𝒱_3`$ is immediate from Corallary 2.3.

$`𝒱_1𝒱_2`$: Let $`f𝒱_1`$ be given. Without loss of generality we can assume that $`f`$ is the characteristic function $`\chi _M`$ of a measurable set $`M𝒳`$ with $`M\omega B(0,s)`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a certain $`s>0`$ not depending on $`\omega `$. As $`𝒳`$ is both locally compact and $`\sigma `$-compact, its Borel-$`\sigma `$-algebra is generated by compact sets. Thus, it suffices to consider $`\chi _K`$ with $`K𝒳`$ compact. By standard arguments, it then suffices to consider $`fC_c(𝒳)`$. For such $`f`$, measurability follows from Proposition 2.5.

$`𝒱_2𝒱_1`$: Let $`f𝒱_2`$ be given. We have to show that $`f:𝒳`$ is measurable. By $`\sigma `$-compactness of $`𝒳`$, it suffices, to find, for every $`(\omega _0,x_0)𝒳`$, an open set $`U𝒳`$ with $`(\omega _0,x_0)U`$ such that $`f|_U`$ is measurable. To provide such an $`U`$, we associate to $`(\omega _0,x_0)`$ an open set $`U_1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ containing $`\omega _0`$ as well as $`h:U_1B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x_0)`$ according to Proposition 2.1. By Uryson’s lemma, we can find $`U_2U_1`$ open containing $`\omega _0`$ and $`gC_c(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with support contained in $`U_1`$ and $`g1`$ on $`U_2`$. Moreover, let $`s:^d`$ be continuous with $`s(0)=1`$ and support contained in $`B_{\frac{r}{4}}`$. Then, $`F:𝒳`$, with $`F(\omega ,x)=g(\omega )s(xh(\omega ))`$ whenever $`\omega U`$ and $`F(\omega ,x)=0`$ otherwise, is continuous with compact support. It is immediate that

$$F(\omega ,x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1:& \omega U_2\text{and}x=h(\omega ),\hfill \\ \hfill 0:& \omega U_2,\text{and}xh(\omega ).\hfill \end{array}$$

On $`U(U_2\times B_{\frac{r}{4}}(x_0))𝒳`$, we then have

$$f(\omega ,x)=f(\omega ,h(\omega ))=F(\omega ,),f(\omega ,)_\omega $$

and we infer measurability of $`f|_U`$ as $`f𝒱_2`$.

It remains to show that $`𝒱_1=𝒱_2`$ is a measurable structure, i.e. satisfies the conditions $`(V),(S),(M)`$ and $`(D)`$. Now, $`(V)`$ is clear and $`(M)`$ is a simple consequence of Corollary 2.6.

Moreover, obviously, $`C_c(𝒳)`$ belongs to $`𝒱_1`$ and $`(S)`$ follows as $`𝒱_2𝒱_1`$. To show $`(D)`$, choose for each $`q^d`$ a function $`f_qC_c(^d)`$ with support contained in $`B_{\frac{r}{2}}(q)`$ and $`f_q1`$ on $`B_{\frac{r}{4}}(q)`$. Then, $`\{f_q|_𝒳:q^d\}`$ has the desired properties. ∎

Having discussed the appropriate notion of measurability, we can now give sense to equation (5). This is the content of the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.9.

The map $`U:L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ with $`U(f)(\omega )(x)=f((\omega ,x))`$ is unitary.

###### Proof.

By the foregoing proposition, $`U(f)`$ belongs indeed to $`𝒱_1`$. Direct calculations invoking Fubini’s Theorem show that $`U`$ is isometric. Thus, $`U`$ indeed maps into $`_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ and is injective. To show that $`U`$ is surjective, is suffices to show that its image is dense. This can be done as follows: Let $`D`$ be a dense set of bounded functions in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mu )`$ and $`f_q`$, $`q^d`$, as in the proof of the foregoing proposition. Then $`\{h:𝒳:h(\omega ,x)=g(\omega )f_q(x)\text{for suitable }gD\text{ and }q^d\}`$ has dense image under $`U`$. ∎

This lemma shows that $`L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )`$ can be identified with $`_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega )`$ in a canonical way.

###### Remark 2.10.

In the above considerations, we have introduced $`𝒳`$ as a tautological bundle over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and then constructed an action of $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒳`$ as well as a family $`\alpha `$ of measures on $`𝒳`$. An alternative point of view is given as follows: A slight rearrangement of the arguments in the proof of Proposition 2.5 shows that

$$\alpha ^\omega :C_c(^d),\alpha ^\omega (f)=\underset{p\omega }{}f(p)$$

is continuous in $`\omega `$ and satisfies an invariance condition. Thus, $`\omega \alpha ^\omega `$ is a transverse function on the groupoid $`𝒢`$ in the sense of Connes non-commutative-integration theory. The space $`𝒳`$ is then nothing but the “support” of $`\alpha `$.

## 3. The von Neuman algebra of random operators

In this section we discuss the von Neuman algebra associated to a uniquely ergodic dynamical system. Details and proofs will be given in .

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ be an $`(r,R)`$-system and let $`\mu `$ be an invariant measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As there exists a canonical isomorphism between $`L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{}^2(𝒳^\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )𝑑\mu (\omega )`$, a special role is played by operators on $`L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha )`$ which respect this fibre structure. More precisely, we consider families $`(A_\omega )_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of bounded operators $`A_\omega :\mathrm{}^2(\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )\mathrm{}^2(\omega ,\alpha ^\omega )`$. Such a family is called measurable if $`\omega f(\omega ),(A_\omega g)(\omega )_\omega `$ is measurable for every $`f𝒱_1`$. It is called bounded if the norms of the $`A_\omega `$ are uniformly bounded. It is called covariant if it satisfies the covariance condition

(6)
$$H_{\omega +t}=U_tH_\omega U_t^{},\omega \mathrm{\Omega },t^d,$$

where $`U_t:\mathrm{}^2(\omega )\mathrm{}^2(\omega +t)`$ is the unitary operator induced by translation. Now, we can define

(7)
$$𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu ):=\{A=(A_\omega )_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}|A\text{ covariant, measurable and bounded}\}/,$$

where $``$ means that we identify families which agree $`\mu `$ almost everywhere.

###### Remark 3.1.

It is possible to define $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ by requiring seemingly weaker conditions. Namely, one can consider families $`(H_\omega )`$ which are essentially bounded and which satisfy the covariance condition almost everywhere. However, by standard procedures (see ), it is possible to show that each of these families agrees almost everywhere with a family satisfying the stronger conditions discussed above.

As is clear from the definition, the elements of $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ are classes of families of operators. However, we will not distinguish too pedantically between classes and their representatives in the sequel.

Apparently, $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ is an involutive algebra under the obvious operations. There is an immediate representation $`\pi :𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )B(L^2(𝒳,\mu \alpha ))`$ given by $`\pi (A)f((\omega ,x))=(A_\omega f_\omega )((\omega ,x))`$. Obviously, $`\pi `$ is injective.

###### Lemma 3.2.

$`\pi (𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu ))`$ is a von Neuman algebra.

The elements of $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ and $`\pi (𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu ))`$ are called random operators.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\mu `$ be ergodic and $`(A_\omega )𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ be selfadjoint. Then there exists $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ac},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{sc},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ess}`$ and a subset $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of full measure such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sigma (A_\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _{}(A_\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ for $`=ac,sc,pp,ess`$ and $`\sigma _{disc}(A_\omega )=\mathrm{}`$ for every $`\omega \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

Each random operator gives rise to a random variable.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`(A_\omega )𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ be given. Then the map $`\beta _A:\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒳)`$, $`\beta _A^\omega (f)=\mathrm{tr}(A_\omega M_f(\omega ))`$ is a complex random variable.

Now, choose a nonnegative $`fC_c(^n)`$ with $`_^nf(x)𝑑x=1`$. Combining the previous proposition with Lemma 2.7, we infer that the map

$$\tau :𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu ),\tau (A)=_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{tr}(A_\omega M_f)𝑑\mu (\omega )$$

does not depend on the choice of $`f`$. Important feature of $`\tau `$ are given in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.5.

The map $`\tau :𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ is continuous, faithful, nonegative on $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )^+`$ and satisfies $`\tau (AB)=\tau (BA)`$.

Having defined $`\tau `$, we can now associate a canonial measure $`\rho _A`$ to every selfadjoint $`A𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$.

###### Definition 3.6.

For $`A𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ selfadjoint, and $`B`$ Borel measurable, we set let $`\rho _A(B)\tau (\chi _B(A))`$, where $`\chi _B`$ is the characteristic function of $`B`$.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`A𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ selfadjoint be given. Then $`\rho _A`$ is a spectral measure for $`A`$. In particular, the support of $`\rho _A`$ agrees with the almost sure spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`A`$ and the equality $`\rho _A(F)=\tau (F(A))`$ holds for every bounded measurable $`F`$ on $``$.

###### Theorem 3.8.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ be a uniquely ergodic, aperiodic DDSF. Let $`\mu `$ be the unique invariant probability measure. Then $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ is a factor of type $`II_D`$, where

$$D=lim_R\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(\omega B_R(0))}{|B_R(0)|}$$

is the density of $`\omega `$.

## 4. Tight binding operators

In order to describe the properties of disordered models quantum mechanically it is common to use a tight binding approach. E.g., a random model is often described by an operator on $`\mathrm{}^2(^d)`$ consisting of the Laplacian that stands for nearest neighbor interactions plus a random potential perturbation. We search for an analogous description of quasicrystals, introducing the following notion that still leaves a lot of flexibility. In comparison with the random or almost random case it is again the fact that the space varies that makes the fundamental difference.

Related constructions have been introduced by Kellendonk  and later been discussed by Kelledonk/Putnam  and Bellissard/Hermann/Zarrouati  (see  as well). All these works are concerned with $`K`$-theory. The relevant $`C^{}`$-algebras of tight binding operators are then discussed within the framework of discrete goupoids. These groupoids are transversals of $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$  (see  for discussion of transversals and tight binding operators as well). Our discussion below does not use transversals and in fact not even groupoids. We rather directly introduce a $`C^{}`$-algebra of tight binding operators. For further details and proofs we refer the reader to .

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a DDSF. A family $`A=(A_\omega )`$, $`A_\omega (\mathrm{}^2(\omega ))`$ is said to be an operator (family) of finite range if there exists $`s>0`$ such that

* $`(A_\omega \delta _x|\delta _y)=0`$ if $`x,y\omega `$ and $`|xy|s`$.
* $`(A_{\omega +t}\delta _{x+t}|\delta _{y+t})=(A_{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}\delta _x|\delta _y)`$ if $`\omega B_s(x+t)=\stackrel{~}{\omega }B_s(x)+t`$ and $`x,y\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$.

This merely says that the matrix elements $`A_\omega (x,y)=(A_\omega \delta _x|\delta _y)`$ of $`A_\omega `$ only depend on a sufficiently large patch around $`x`$ and vanish if the distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$ is too large. Since there are only finitely many nonequivalent patches, an operator of finite range is bounded in the sense that

$$A=\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}A_\omega <\mathrm{}.$$

Moreover it is clear that every such $`A`$ is covariant and consequently $`A𝒩(\mathrm{\Omega },T,\mu )`$ for every invariant measure $`\mu `$. The completion of the space of all finite range operators with respect to the above norm is a $`C^{}`$–algebra that we denote by $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$. The representations $`\pi _\omega :AA_\omega `$ can be uniquely extended to representations of $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ and are again denoted by $`\pi _\omega :𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega },T)(\mathrm{}^2(\omega ))`$. We have the following result:

###### Theorem 4.2.

The following conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are equivalent:

* $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ is minimal.
* For any selfadjoint $`A𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ the spectrum $`\sigma (A_\omega )`$ is independent of $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.
* $`\pi _\omega `$ is faithful for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Next we relate the “abstract integrated density of states” $`\rho _A`$ to the integrated density of states as considered in random or almost random models and defined by a volume limit over finite parts of the operator.

Note that for selfadjoint $`A𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ and bounded $`Q^d`$ the restriction $`A_\omega |_Q`$ defined on $`\mathrm{}^2(Q\omega )`$ has finite rank. Therefore, the spectral counting function

$$n(A_\omega ,Q)(E):=\mathrm{\#}\{\text{ eigenvalues of }A_\omega |_Q\text{ below }E\}$$

is finite and $`\frac{1}{|Q|}n(A_\omega ,Q)`$ is the distribution function of the measure $`\rho (A_\omega ,Q)`$, defined by

$$\rho (A_\omega ,Q),\phi :=\frac{1}{|Q|}\text{tr}(\phi (A_\omega |_Q))\text{ for }\phi C_b().$$

One of the fundamentals of random operator theory is the existence of the infinite volume limit

$$N(E)=\underset{Q^d}{lim}\frac{1}{|Q|}n(A_\omega ,Q)(E)$$

for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. This amounts to the convergence in distribution of the measures $`\rho (A_\omega ,Q)`$ just defined. As a first result on weak convergence we get:

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ be a uniquely ergodic DDSF and $`A𝒜(\mathrm{\Omega },T)`$ selfadjoint. Then, for any van Hoove sequence $`Q_n`$, $`\rho (A_\omega ,Q_n)\rho _A\text{ weakly as }n\mathrm{}.`$

###### Remark 4.4.

This result is analogous to corresponding results for random or almost periodic operators as e.g. . It generalizes results in Kellendonk’s  on tilings associated to primitive substitutions. Its proof uses ideas of the cited works of Bellissard (see  as well) and of Hof .

For strictly ergodic, aperiodoc DDSF, we actually have a much stronger result. Namely, we can show pointwise and even uniform convergence of the corresponding distribution functions. Of course, uniform convergence follows from vage convergene if the limit is continuous. Thus, let us emphasize that in the context of DDSF continuity of the distribution function of $`\rho `$ is wrong in general. Still uniform convergence holds. Let us mention that this fits well within the general philosophy that everything behaves very uniformly within the reign of quasicrystals. All of this will be discussed in .


text:
# Recalculation of Pion Compton Scattering in Perturbative QCD

## 1 Introduction

Pion virtual Compton scattering (VCS) $`\gamma ^{}\pi ^{}\gamma \pi ^{}`$ via the reaction $`e\pi ^{}e\gamma \pi ^{}`$ is observed by SELEX Collaboration at Fermi Lab  for the first time. Although in the current available kinematical region, the process can not be predicted precisely in perturbative QCD (pQCD), it is possible to observe such processes in the pQCD-applicable region with the quick development of experimental techniques. Therefore it is meaningful to check the pQCD prediction of this process.

For this problem, Tamazouzt  calculated a very similar process, $`\gamma \pi ^\pm \gamma ^{}\pi ^\pm `$; Maina and Torrasso  calculated it directly and treated the singular integration appearing in it carefully; Li and Coriano  calculated it by a rather different way. One common problem existing in  and  is: the authors only directly calculated 5 diagrams contributing to the unintegrated amplitude but gave no prescriptions about how to get the other 15 ones, please see fig.2 and captions there. Ref. did not give its expressions for the unintegrated amplitude but claimed consistence with . As was pointed out by the author of , the numerical treatments of  have some defaults. However, in literature , features that deserve further investigations still exist after the revision. For example, a nearly jumping change happened to the phase of $`M_{LR}`$, please see figure 5 of .

Because of these questions, we decide to recalculate this problem in this paper. It will be shown that, all the deficiencies in the literatures will not exist in our recalculated results.

## 2 Factorization Theorem of pQCD for Pion VCS

As indicated in the caption of fig.1, a complete physical process $`e\pi ^{}e\gamma \pi ^{}`$ can take place through two ways, Bethe-Heitler process and virtual Compton scattering. But we will not calculate such a complete process in this paper, please refer to  and . We will concentrate on the sub-process $`\gamma ^{}\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm `$ and use $`M`$ denoting the amplitude of it. Besides its inclusion of real Compton scattering as a limit case, it is also meaningful in the preparation for the calculation of the complete process $`e\pi ^{}e\gamma \pi ^{}`$.

Factorization theorem states that for an exclusive process  such as pion VCS $`\gamma ^{}\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm `$, the amplitude of it can be written as the following convolution formula,

$$M(p;ϵqp^{};ϵ^{}q^{})=dxdy\varphi (x,Q)H(xp;ϵ,qyp^{};ϵ^{},q^{})\varphi (y,Q),$$
(1)
where $`p`$ denotes the momentum of the incoming pion, $`ϵ`$ and $`q`$ are the polarization vector and momentum of the photon respectively. $`x`$ denotes one of the momentum fraction of the valence quarks in the incoming pion, and that of the other one will be denoted by $`\overline{x}=1x`$. The primed variables or $`y`$ are associated with outgoing particles.

The pion distribution amplitude $`\varphi (x,Q)`$ in eq.(1) absorbs the long-distance dynamics of $`M`$ and can be derived by non-perturbative methods . Appearing of $`Q`$ in it indicates its evolution with the energy scale. In this paper, instead of consideration of such evolution , we will study the following five phenomenological models and their effects on the physics predictions ,

$`\varphi _{as}=\sqrt{3}f_\pi x(1x),`$
$`\varphi _{bhl}=1.4706\sqrt{3}f_\pi x(1x)\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{0.07043}{x(1x)}}],`$
$`\varphi _{cz}=5\sqrt{3}f_\pi x(1x)(2x1)^2,`$
$`\varphi _{hs}=8.8763\sqrt{3}f_\pi x(1x)(2x1)^2\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{0.07062}{x(1x)}}],`$
$`\varphi _{p3}=\sqrt{3}f_\pi x(1x)[0.60164.659(2x1)^2+15.52(2x1)^4],`$
(2)
with the pion decay constant $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV and the distribution amplitudes normalized by $`𝑑x\varphi (x)=\sqrt{3}f_\pi /6`$, please see fig.4 for their explicit shapes. From the figure, we can see that, relative to $`\varphi _{as}`$ and $`\varphi _{cz}`$, the distribution amplitudes $`\varphi _{bhl}`$ and $`\varphi _{hs}`$ suppress the end point region deeply, while function $`\varphi _{p3}`$ intensifies both the near-end-point region and the center region.

Contrary to $`\varphi (x)`$, the hard amplitude $`H(xp;ϵqyp^{};ϵ^{}q^{})`$ in eq.(1) absorbs short-distance dynamics of the amplitude, and can be calculated perturbatively on the basis of the diagrams in fig.2. With leading Fock state of $`\pi ^+`$ ($`\pi ^{}`$ case is similar),

$$|\pi ^+(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\underset{i}{\overset{1,2,3}{}}\left[|u_{}^i(xp)|\overline{d}_{}^{\overline{i}}(\overline{x}p)|u_{}^i(xp)|\overline{d}_{}^{\overline{i}}(\overline{x}p)\right],$$
(3)
where $`i`$ and $`\overline{i}`$ denote the color indices, $`H`$ can be written as

$`H(xp,ϵqyp^{},ϵ^{}q^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{diag.}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{color}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}_{}^j(yp^{})(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu t_{ji}^a\mathrm{})u_{}^i(xp)g_{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}\overline{v}_{}^{\overline{i}}(\overline{x}p)(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\nu t_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^b\mathrm{})v_{}^{\overline{j}}(\overline{y}p^{})}{p_1^2p_2^2p_3^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}_{}^j(yp^{})(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu t_{ji}^a\mathrm{})u_{}^i(xp)g_{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}\overline{v}_{}^{\overline{i}}(\overline{x}p)(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\nu t_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^b\mathrm{})v_{}^{\overline{j}}(\overline{y}p^{})}{p_1^2p_2^2p_3^2}}],`$
(4)
with the coupling constants $`\alpha _e`$, $`\alpha _s`$ and the charge factor $`e_u^2`$ or $`e_ue_{\overline{d}}`$ suppressed for the moment. In eq.(4), $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ denote the momentum transferred through the two fermion and one gluon propagators; explicit expressions of $`(\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu t^a\mathrm{})`$s depend on the details of diagrams. Using identity of $`SU(3)`$ color group,

$$t_{ij}^at_{kl}^a=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}\frac{1}{3}\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}),$$
(5)
and some trace making trick, please see , eq.(4) can be transformed into the following form

$`H(x,ϵqy,ϵ^{}q^{})={\displaystyle \underset{diag.}{}}H_{ϵϵ^{}}^{(diag.)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{x\overline{x}y\overline{y}}{\displaystyle \underset{diag.}{}}Tr[(\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})_{diag.}\gamma ^5p/(\gamma _\mu \mathrm{})_{diag.}\gamma ^5p^{}/].`$ (6)
By the usual convention, distribution amplitude $`\varphi (x)\varphi (y)`$ will absorb the $`\sqrt{x\overline{x}y\overline{y}}`$ factor, so it will not be included in our later expressions for $`H_{ϵϵ^{}}`$.

## 3 Unintegrated Amplitude of $`\gamma ^{}\pi ^\pm \gamma \pi ^\pm `$

In the center-of-momentum frame of outgoing particles $`\gamma `$ and $`\pi ^\pm `$, please refer to , we write all the relevant kinematical variables as follows,

$`p^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega +p}{2}}(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`q^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega +p}{2}}(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`p^\mu =(p,0,0,p),q^\mu =(\omega ,0,0,p),`$ (7)
$`ϵ_R^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,1,i,0),ϵ_R^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,\mathrm{cos}\theta ,i,\mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$
$`ϵ_L^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(0,1,i,0),`$
$`ϵ_+^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,0,0,1).`$ (8)
Obviously, $`\theta `$ denotes the scattering angle of the process. According to parity invariance and gauge invariance, we only need to calculate three helicity amplitudes for the purpose of computing the amplitude of the complete physical process $`e\pi ^\pm e\gamma \pi ^\pm `$, please see  and . In order to compare with , we choose to calculate $`H_{RR}`$, $`H_{LR}`$ and $`H_{+R}`$, while obtain the other five by the following relations,

$`H_{LL}=H_{RR},H_{RL}=H_{LR},H_{+L}=H_{+R};`$
$`H_R=v^1H_{+R},H_L=v^1H_{+L}.`$ (9)
After introducing the abbreviation $`c=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}`$, $`s=\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}`$, $`S=(\omega +p)^2`$, $`v=q^\mu q_\mu /S`$ and $`\overline{v}=1v`$, we can write all the diagrams contributing to $`H`$ in more economical forms. The results are shown in table 1-3, where we have transformed the diagrams with two propagators potentially on shell into some equivalent forms in which only one of them can go on shell by the following relation,

$$\frac{f(x,y)}{(xa(y)+iϵ)(xb(y)+iϵ)}=\frac{f(x,y)}{a(y)b(y)}\left(\frac{1}{xa(y)+iϵ}\frac{1}{xb(y)+iϵ}\right).$$
(10)
This is very important in the numerical integration. Considering the fact that each diagram of fig.2 has a companion with its photons attached to different quark lines, we include a charge factor for each of the diagrams in the table, where $`\frac{5}{9}=e_u^2+e_{\overline{d}}^2,\frac{4}{9}=2e_ue_{\overline{d}}`$.

Table 1 $`H_{RR}^{(diag.)}(\frac{1}{S}\alpha _e\alpha _s`$)

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ a:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}(xaiϵ)}& f:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4s^2\overline{v}^1}{x\overline{x}\overline{y}}\\ b:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}y}& g:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}[(1\overline{v}s^2)yv]}\\ c:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}y\overline{y}(xa+iϵ)}& h:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4s^2\overline{v}^1[1(\overline{v}x+y)s^2+2\overline{v}xys^4]}{[y(1\overline{v}s^2)v]x\overline{x}\overline{y}}\\ d:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4\overline{v}^1[c^2+s^2(\overline{v}x+v)]}{c^2\overline{x}y}(\frac{1}{xa+iϵ}\frac{1}{xb+iϵ})& i:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4c^2}{\overline{y}[y(1\overline{v}s^2)v](xb+iϵ)}\\ e:& 0& j:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4s^2\overline{v}^1[yv+\overline{v}\overline{x}(12ys^2)]}{\overline{x}(1ys^2)[y(1\overline{v}s^2)v](xb+iϵ)}\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & a=\frac{v}{\overline{v}},b=\frac{yvy\overline{v}s^2}{\overline{v}(1ys^2)}& & \end{array}$$

Table 2 $`H_{LR}^{(diag.)}(\frac{1}{S}\alpha _e\alpha _s)`$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ a:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}(xa+iϵ)}& f:& 0\\ b:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}y\overline{y}}& g:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4v\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}[(1\overline{v}s^2)yv]}\\ c:& 0& h:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4\overline{v}^1[y+\overline{v}x(12ys^2)]}{x\overline{x}\overline{y}[(1\overline{v}s^2)yv]}\\ d:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2}{y}(\frac{1}{xa+iϵ}\frac{1}{xb+iϵ})& i:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2y}{\overline{y}(1ys^2)[(1\overline{v}s^2)yv](xb+iϵ)}\\ e:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4c^2s^2}{y\overline{y}}(\frac{1}{xa+iϵ}\frac{1}{xb+iϵ})& j:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4s^2\overline{v}^1[\overline{y}\overline{v}\overline{x}(12ys^2)]}{\overline{x}(1ys^2)[(1\overline{v}s^2)yv](xb+iϵ)}\\ & & & \end{array}$$

Table 3 $`H_{+R}^{(diag.)}(\frac{1}{S}\alpha _e\alpha _s)`$

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \\ a:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{8cs^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}}& f:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4c^1s^1\overline{v}^1(12\overline{v}x)}{x\overline{x}\overline{y}}& & & & \\ b:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4cs^1\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}y\overline{y}}& g:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4cs^1v\overline{v}^1}{\overline{x}\overline{y}[(1\overline{v}s^2)yv]}& & & & \\ c:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4cs^1}{\overline{x}y\overline{y}}& h:& \frac{5}{9}\frac{4cs^1\overline{v}^1y(12\overline{v}s^2x)}{x\overline{x}\overline{y}[y(1\overline{v}s^2)v]}& & & & \\ d:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4c^1s\overline{v}^1[12\overline{v}s^2\overline{x}]}{\overline{x}(1ys^2)(xb+iϵ)}& i:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4c^3sy}{\overline{y}(1ys^2)[y(1\overline{v}s^2)v](xb+iϵ)}& & & & \\ e:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4cs}{\overline{y}(1ys^2)(xb+iϵ)}& j:& \frac{4}{9}\frac{4cs\overline{v}^1[vy+2\overline{v}\overline{x}ys^2]}{\overline{x}(1ys^2)[y(1\overline{v}s^2)v](xb+iϵ)}& & & & \\ & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

For $`H_{RR}^{(diag.)}`$ and $`H_{LR}^{(diag.)}`$, we compared our expressions with those of  in the $`v0`$ limit (in , it is $`R_b0`$). Except our consideration of 5 additional independent diagrams labelled $`fj`$, all the other terms, labelled $`ae`$, coincide with . For $`H_{+R}^{(diag.)}`$, in , it is $`H_{0R}`$, because we employ the convention of  for the virtual photon polarization vector, which is different from , our expression of it does not coincide with that of . Our convention is very convenient for future calculation of the complete process $`e\pi ^\pm e\gamma \pi ^\pm `$.

In the case of $`v=0`$, by adding all the diagrams in table 2 together, we can get a rather simple expression for $`H_{LR}`$,

$$H_{LR}=(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{3})^2\frac{8c^2s^2}{x(1y)},$$
(11)
So, in the $`v0`$ limit, the amplitude $`H_{LR}`$ is a real number, it has no imaginary part. About this point, literature  give a general discussion. It should be notified that  has an error or misprint in giving its expression for $`H_{LR}|_{v0}`$ as $`H_{LR}=C_0(e_1e_2)^2(xy)c^2s^2`$. Obviously, such an unintegrated amplitude will give zero amplitude $`M_{LR}`$ in the integration after multiplied by a symmetric factor $`\varphi (x)\varphi (y)`$, please see eq.(1).

From table 1-3, we can see that, one by one, diagrams in the second row of fig.2 do not equal to those of the first row. From the numerical results of later sections, we will be able to see that, as a total, the second row diagrams also do not equal to those of the first row. So in this problem, the number of independent diagrams is 10 instead of 5. Of course, the total number is 20 as we indicate in the caption of fig.2.

## 4 Analytical Results of Electron VCS and Qualitative Properties of Pion VCS

From the aspect of experiencing VCS, unpolarized electrons and pions are similar to each other, so we can hope cross sections of VCS on the unpolarized electrons and on pions have similar $`v`$ and $`\theta `$ dependence. Because electron has no internal structure, its VCS cross sections can be get analytically. By the same kinematical variables as those of pion VCS, neglecting the mass of the electron, we can get the following expressions for electron VCS $`\gamma _ϵ^{}e\gamma _ϵ^{}e`$,

$`d\sigma _{RR}\overline{v}|M_{RR}|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{c^2}}[(1v)^2+c^4)]`$ (12)
$`d\sigma _{LR}\overline{v}|M_{LR}|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}[2v^2s^4]`$ (13)
$`d\sigma _{+R}\overline{v}|M_{+R}|^2`$
$`2v^2s^2`$ (14)
Fig.3 illustrated explicit shape of the $`v`$ and $`\theta `$ dependence of the cross sections. From the figure, we can easily see that, in both the $`RR`$ and $`LR`$ processes, large angle scattering cross sections dominate over the little angle ones. While, in the $`+R`$ process, the cross sections depend on the scattering angle weakly. As we will indicate in the following, in pion VCS, the same properties of the polarized cross sections persist.

## 5 Numerical Integrations and Results

We perform numerical integrations and give results for the cross sections as well as corresponding phases for different polarized processes in this section.

With eqs.(1), (2), (6) and table 1-3, and using the following relation

$$S^3\frac{d\sigma _{ϵϵ^{}}(\theta )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{1}{2}\overline{v}S^4\frac{d\sigma _{ϵϵ^{}}(\theta )}{dt}=\overline{v}\frac{S^2}{32\pi }|M_{ϵϵ^{}}|^2,$$
(15)
and the principle integration formula,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\frac{f(x,y)}{xa(y)+iϵ}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑yP\frac{f(x,y)}{(xa)}}i\pi {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑yf(x,y)\delta (xa),`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑yP\frac{f(x,y)}{xa}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑yP\frac{f(x,y)f(a,y)}{xa}}+f(a,y)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1a}{a}},`$ (16)
we can get reliable numerical results for the cross sections and corresponding phases for different polarization processes. One can see that our treatment of the singular point appearing in the numerical integration is the subtraction method. As was indicated by  in the similar calculation for proton Compton scattering, different numerical treatments of the singular points can give consistent results as long as it is applied appropriately.

We get our numerical integrations by VEGAS program . As did by , we take $`\alpha _s=0.3`$, $`\alpha _e=1/137.036`$ in numerical computations. Noting the fact that, $`H`$, thus $`M`$ varies with $`\frac{1}{S}`$, we show the product $`\frac{S^3d\sigma _{ϵϵ^{}}(\theta )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$ instead of $`\frac{d\sigma _{ϵϵ^{}(\theta )}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$ in final results.

First, in fig.4, using distribution amplitude $`\varphi _{p3}`$, we compared the cross sections of the process $`\gamma _L^{}\pi ^\pm \gamma _R\pi ^\pm `$ in the following two cases: (i). the unintegrated amplitude includes 10 independent diagrams; (ii). the unintegrated amplitude only includes 5 independent diagrams (the upper part of fig.2). Obviously, the cross sections from the ten diagram contained amplitudes can not be gained by simply multiplying a total factor on those from the five diagram contained ones.

Second, in fig.5, we reconstructed the results of  for the cross section $`S^3\frac{d\sigma _{+R}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$ of pion VCS using distribution amplitudes $`\varphi _{p3}`$. In the right part of this figure, we studied the scattering angle dependence of the cross section when $`v0`$, by letting $`v=0.8,0.1,0.05,10^2,10^5,10^8`$ in stead of $`v=1.0,0.75,0.50,0.25`$, as was done in .

In fig.6, we illustrated the $`v`$ and $`\theta `$ dependence of the cross section and corresponding phases for different polarized processes, with distribution amplitude $`\varphi _{as}`$. For the $`+R`$ process, the cross section decreases with $`v0`$, and it equals to zero when $`v=0`$. The scattering angle dependence of it is very similar to that of the electron VCS. As in the electron VCS, both for $`LR`$ and for $`RR`$ processes, large angle scattering cross sections dominate. The difference is, in the little scattering angle regions, the cross section decreases as $`v0`$, while in the large angle region, the trend reverses. When $`v0`$, the phase of $`M_{LR}180^{}`$, and if we redefine the domain of the phase angle, it can be set to 0.

In fig.7, we compared distribution amplitudes from different models and their effects on the physical observables. We must admit that, relative to those given by $`\varphi _{as}`$ and $`\varphi _{cz}`$, cross sections given by the end-point-region suppressed distribution amplitudes $`\varphi _{bhl}`$ and $`\varphi _{hs}`$ suffer some suppressions. We know that, if the very end point region of the distribution amplitudes has very important contributions to the cross sections of physical processes, pQCD is non-applicable in calculating this problem. Now, our results indicate that this is not the case, so our calculation is self-consistence. Of course, to reduce the differences from distribution amplitudes, careful treatments of the end point region and consideration of the higher order corrections are necessary in further study.

To see this more clearly, we computed another six polarized cross sections for virtual Compton scattering process in fig.8. The upper part of fig.8 corresponds to the $`v=0.05`$ case while the down part corresponds to the $`v=0.8`$ case. As in fig.7, we can see that the end-point-region suppressed distribution amplitudes still do not give much-suppressed cross sections at most of the scattering angles.

## 6 Conclusions

We recalculated pion VCS in pQCD in this paper, RCS is treated as a limit case in our framework. Comparisons with existing literatures and with electron VCS are made in the text. Our study of different distribution amplitudes and their effects on the cross sections and corresponding phases of the polarized processes indicates that the behavior of the distribution amplitudes at the very end point region does not have very strong effects on the physical predictions, but careful treatments of the end point region of distribution amplitudes are necessary in the further investigations of this problem.

## Acknowledgements

The first author thanks very much to Professor Hsiang-nan Li for his suggestion of studying an exclusive process as the beginning of pQCD learning. We are greatly indebted to the anonymous referee for the kind and valuable instructions and suggestions. This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.