text:
# Polarization transfer in the 16O(𝑝,𝑝') reaction at forward angles and structure of the spin-dipole resonances

## I Introduction

Spin-isospin excitation modes in nuclei have been studied intensively, not only because they are of interest in nuclear structure, but also because the relevant operators mediate $`\beta `$-decay and neutrino capture processes. The cross sections of hadronic reactions provide a good measure for the weak interaction response, which is a key ingredient in studies of nucleosynthesis. Gamow-Teller resonances (GTR; $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$) mediated by the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ operator have been systematically investigated by charge exchange reactions like $`(p,n)`$ and $`(^3`$He,$`t)`$ reactions with a selectivity for spin-flip transitions at intermediate energies ALFO98 ; MAMO96 . On the other hand, spin-dipole resonances (SDR; $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$) mediated by the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\tau }rY_1`$ operator have not been studied in any detail although the excitations have recently received attention from the view point of detection of supernova neutrinos KOLB01 ; FULL99 ; LANG96 . The detailed structure of the SDR remains unclear with respect to the three different spin states of $`J^\pi =2^{}`$, $`1^{}`$, and $`0^{}`$.

Transitions to the $`1^{}`$ states can be induced by a probe with spin through the spin-flip and non-spin-flip processes with the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\tau }rY_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\tau }rY_1`$ operators. The $`\stackrel{}{\tau }rY_1`$ operator mediates the isovector giant dipole resonance (IVGDR; $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$), which has the spin-parity of $`J^\pi =1^{}`$, the same as the SDR. Theoretically, the SDR and IVGDR are observed together in $`(p,p^{})`$ reactions because they have the same $`J^\pi =1^{}`$ and are located in the same excitation energy region. The problem concerning the coexistence of the SDR and IVGDR was discussed in Ref. SAGA85 .

The SDR in the A=12 system has been relatively well studied in the past. Cross sections of the SDR in the 12C$`(p,n)`$ reaction were measured at various bombarding energies and the strength distributions were discussed and compared with shell model calculations in view of the analog relation in N=Z nuclei GAAR84 . The experimental analysis of the data has led to the conclusion that broad structures at $`E_x=`$ 4.2 and 7.2 MeV in 12N consist of mainly $`2^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$, respectively. Recent measurements of $`(p,n)`$ and $`(n,p)`$ reactions supported this conclusion YANG93 . An analysis of the tensor analyzing powers measured in the 12C$`(d,^2`$He) reaction resulted in the contradictory conclusion that the $`2^{}`$ transition dominates around $`E_x=7.5`$ MeV in 12B, which corresponds to the excitation region around $`E_x=7.2`$ MeV in 12N, and the contribution from the $`1^{}`$ transition is small OKAM95 . This “missing spin-flip $`1^{}`$” result was supported by a shell model study, which predicted that the tensor correlation and the mixing of 2p-2h configurations push the spin-flip $`1^{}`$ strength to higher excitation energies and thus quench the strength around the giant resonance region SUZU98 . However, more recent measurements of neutron-decay in the SDR region excited via the $`(d,^2`$He) reaction supported the $`(p,n)`$ and $`(n,p)`$ results again INOM98 . Thus, this problem concerning the spin-parity assignment for the SDR in the A=12 system remains controversial.

The 16O nucleus consists of eight protons and eight neutrons in the $`1s_{1/2}`$, $`1p_{3/2}`$, and $`1p_{1/2}`$ shell orbitals in a simple independent particle model. Since the SDR excitation in $`p`$-shell nuclei is described as a coherent sum of 1p-1h transitions from the $`p`$\- to the $`sd`$-shell orbitals, the SDR excitations in 16O are expected to be stronger than those in 12C. Djalali et al. identified several $`2^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ states at $`E_x=`$19$``$27 MeV in 16O by comparing a $`(p,p^{})`$ spectrum at $`E_p=201`$ MeV with a $`(\gamma ,n)`$ spectrum DJAL87 . They pointed out that the gross structures of the $`1^{}`$ resonances observed in $`(p,p^{})`$ and $`(\gamma ,n)`$ reactions are similar. This suggests that the IVGDR, which is excited through the Coulomb interaction, is dominant in the proton inelastic scattering at intermediate energies, especially at forward angles. Therefore, spin-flip $`1^{}`$ states were not identified in the $`(p,p^{})`$ measurement of Ref. DJAL87 .

It is well known that the analog states of N=Z nuclei can be easily observed in charge exchange reactions. Fazely et al. identified two strong $`2^{}`$ states at $`E_x=0.4`$ and 7.6 MeV, and two broad $`1^{}`$ states at 9.4 and 11.5 MeV in 16F by measuring angular distributions of the 16O$`(p,n)`$ cross sections FAZE82 . In addition, Hicks et al. HICK91  and Mercer et al. MERC94  reported that a sizable amount of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ strength in 16F and 16N was observed in the 16O$`(p,n)`$ and 16O$`(n,p)`$ reactions using a multipole decomposition method. In their multipole decomposition analyses, spin-flip and non-spin-flip contributions of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ strength were not distinguished. Since the $`(p,n)`$ and $`(n,p)`$ reactions at intermediate energies dominantly carry the spin-flip strength at forward angles, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ strength in the 16O$`(p,n)`$ and 16O$`(n,p)`$ reactions should include the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ (SDR) components. Watson et al. performed a high resolution measurement of the 16O$`(p,n)`$ reaction at $`E_p=135`$ MeV and identified 2-, 1-, and 1+ transition strengths by measuring cross sections and vertical polarization transfer observables (PT-observables) WATS94 . For further clarification of the spin nature of the 1- transitions, it is, however, necessary to measure horizontal PT-observables, too.

There is another important aspect in studying the level structure of the excited states in 16O. The nucleus 16O is now considered as a possible neutrino detector to investigate the explosion mechanism of supernovae LANG96 ; KOLB92 ; EJIR00 ; SUZU00a ; SIIS01 . High energy neutrinos with an average energy of $``$25 MeV are emitted from the heat bath in a supernova. When a supernova collapses near our galaxy, it is expected that a sizable flux of neutrinos from the neutronization process and the subsequent thermal emission process appears on earth during a sub-second period. Such supernova neutrinos can be detected by measuring deexcitations of the excited states in 16O, 16F, and 16N in large neutrino detectors, e.g. Superkamiokande and SNO with a huge number of 16O nuclei. The neutrinos predominantly excite $`0^{}`$, $`1^{}`$, and $`2^{}`$ states via neutral and charged current reactions LANG96 . Many calculations were performed to estimate the cross sections of neutrino induced reactions on 16O KOLB92 ; SUZU00a ; SIIS01 . To confirm these calculations, measurements of the strength distributions of $`0^{}`$, $`1^{}`$, and $`2^{}`$ states in 16O are important not only for nuclear physics but also for the astrophysical application.

Recently, PT-observables for $`(p,p^{})`$ reactions were successfully measured at 0 and were found to be a useful spectroscopic tool to study nuclear structure TAMI99 ; ISHI01 , because the total spin transfer $`\mathrm{\Sigma }[3(D_{SS}+D_{NN}+D_{LL})]/4`$, provides a clear mean to clarify spin-flip or non-spin-flip transitions SAKA98 ; SUZU00b . Thus, measurements of PT-observables at forward angles enable us to extract spin-flip transitions. In this report, we will present information on the structure of the SDR in 16O, which is obtained from measurements of PT-observables in proton inelastic scattering at very forward angles including 0.

## II Experimental Procedure

The experiment was performed at the Research Center for Nuclear Physics (RCNP), Osaka University by using a 392 MeV polarized proton beam accelerated by the coupled cyclotrons. The proton beam from the polarized ion source HATA97  was accelerated to a kinetic energy of 64.2 MeV by the $`K=120`$ MeV AVF (Azimuthally Varying Field) cyclotron, and was further boosted to 392 MeV by the $`K`$ = 400 MeV Ring cyclotron. The proton beam extracted from the Ring cyclotron was achromatically transported to the target. The beam intensity on target was in the range of 1$``$10 nA. Scattered protons were momentum analyzed by the high-resolution spectrometer Grand Raiden MAMO99 . Trajectories of the scattered protons were determined using a focal-plane detector system consisting of two multi-wire drift chambers and plastic scintillation detectors. Cross sections were obtained at seven scattering angles between $`\theta _{lab}=0^{}`$ and 14. An energy resolution of 80$``$150 keV full width at half maximum (FWHM) was obtained, which was dominated by the energy spread of the cyclotron beam. In the measurements at scattering angles between 6 and 14, the proton beam was stopped in a Faraday cup in the scattering chamber. Since this Faraday cup reduced the acceptance of the spectrometer Grand Raiden at angles between 2.5 and 4 and unacceptable background from edge scattering was produced, a different Faraday cup was used between the first quadrupole (Q1) and the sextupole (SX) magnets of Grand Raiden MAMO99  at these angles. In the measurement at $`0^{}`$, the proton beam passed through Grand Raiden and was stopped in another Faraday cup located 12 m downstream of the focal plane YOSO01 .

### II.1 H2O ice target

Thin H2O ice sheets with various thicknesses of 10$``$30 mg/cm2 were used as oxygen targets. The ice target system is described in detail in Ref. BATA01 . Here, we briefly describe the target preparation procedure. Self supporting ice sheets made of pure water were mounted in the scattering chamber, which was kept under vacuum lower than 10-3 Pa without any window-foil. The ice targets were cooled down to below 140 K by liquid nitrogen. The loss of the ice target by sublimation is negligible at this temperature, since vapor-pressure of H2O is of the order of 10-6 Pa at 140 K and decreases exponentially at lower temperature. This newly developed ice target gave us the great advantage in obtaining clean $`(p,p^{})`$ spectra since the background events from hydrogen contaminations in the target are out of the interested momentum region at most of the measurement angles due to the large difference of kinematic effects between oxygen and hydrogen. Fig. 1 shows the kinematics of protons scattered from 1H and 16O as a function of angles. In measurements for the SDR region ($`E_x=`$19$``$25 MeV) denoted by the hatched region in Fig. 1, the 16O$`(p,p^{})`$ events are obscured by the 1H(p,p) events at $`\theta _{lab}=`$12$`{}_{}{}^{}`$14, but are not disturbed at the other angles.

In order to monitor the target thickness during the measurement, elastic scattering events from hydrogen were measured by the spectrometer LAS MATS95  placed at $`\theta _{lab}=59.5^{}`$. The target thickness was calibrated by using the cross section for proton-proton elastic scattering at $`\theta _{lab}=59.5^{}`$ calculated with the program SAID ARND97 . The target thickness was stable within the measurement uncertainty of $`\pm 2.5`$% during the experiment.

### II.2 Polarization transfer measurements

A proton beam from the AVF cyclotron was vertically polarized. Two super-conducting solenoids between the two cyclotrons were used for the purpose of rotating the polarization axis of protons from the vertical to the horizontal direction in measurements with a horizontally polarized beam. The two solenoids were located upstream and downstream of bending magnets with a total bending angle of 45. This configuration enables us to obtain horizontally polarized beams with two polarization axes approximately perpendicular to each other. The beam polarization was 0.6$``$0.8, which was monitored with an accuracy of $`\pm 0.02`$ by two sets of beam-line polarimeters after the Ring cyclotron using a polystyrene analyzer target. The direction of the beam polarization was reversed every second to eliminate instrumental asymmetries.

The polarization of protons scattered from the ice target were measured at laboratory angles of 0, 4, and 8 by a focal plane polarimeter (FPP) after momentum analysis in the spectrometer Grand Raiden. The FPP consisted of an analyzer target of a 12 cm-thick carbon slab, four multi-wire proportional chambers, and scintillator hodoscopes YOSO95 . The effective analyzing power $`A_y^{eff}`$ of the FPP is given by

$$A_y^{eff}=\frac{\sigma ^{inc}(\theta )A_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{inc}(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\varphi d\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sigma ^{inc}(\theta )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma ^{inc}(\theta )`$ and $`A_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{inc}(\theta )`$ are the cross section and analyzing power for inclusive proton scattering from elastic, inelastic, and quasi-free processes in the analyzer target of the FPP. The angular integrations in Eq. (1) are performed over the polar angle of $`5^{}\theta 20^{}`$ and the azimuthal angle of $`|\varphi |66.8^{}`$ for the scattering angles. The inclusive cross section $`\sigma ^{inc}(\theta )`$ was measured in this experiment. We used the analyzing power $`A_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{inc}(\theta )`$ given in Ref. MCNA85 , which is parameterized as a function of the proton energy and scattering angle.

The PT-observables $`(D_{I^{}J})`$ are defined by the following relation HOSH86 ; OHLS72 ,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}p_{}^{}{}_{S^{}}{}^{}\\ p_{}^{}{}_{N^{}}{}^{}\\ p_{}^{}{}_{L^{}}{}^{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{1+p_NA_N}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ P\\ 0\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}D_{S^{}S}& 0& D_{S^{}L}\\ 0& D_{N^{}N}& 0\\ D_{L^{}S}& 0& D_{L^{}L}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_S\\ p_N\\ p_L\end{array}\right)\right].$$
(2)
The symbols, $`p_I`$ and $`p_{}^{}{}_{I^{}}{}^{}`$ ($`I=S`$, $`N`$, $`L`$), denote the polarizations of the incident and the scattered protons, respectively. The coordinate system is chosen so that the $`L`$ axis is along the beam direction, the $`N`$ axis is along the normal to the horizontal plane, and the $`S`$ axis is chosen to form a right-handed coordinate system (projectile helicity frame). Similarly, the $`L^{}`$ axis is oriented along the momentum of scattered protons, the $`N^{}`$ axis is the same as the $`N`$ axis, and the $`S^{}`$ axis forms a right-handed coordinate system (outgoing particle helicity frame). The symbols, $`A_N`$ and $`P`$, are analyzing power and vector polarization, respectively. The off diagonal elements of PT-observables $`D_{I^{}J}`$ between the horizontal and vertical axes vanish due to parity conservation.

The proton spin precesses around the vertical axis of the spectrometer. The spin precession angle $`\chi `$ with respect to the momentum direction of the proton is described by $`\chi =\gamma (\frac{g}{2}1)\alpha `$ in the moving frame, where $`\gamma `$ is a Lorentz factor defined by $`\gamma =\frac{m_pc^2+E_p}{m_pc^2}`$, $`g`$ is the spin g-factor of the proton, which is related to the proton magnetic moment by $`\mu _p=\frac{1}{2}g\mu _N`$ ($`\mu _N`$ = nuclear magneton), and $`\alpha `$ is the bending angle of the spectrometer. The vertical ($`p_{N^{\prime \prime }}^{}`$) and horizontal ($`p_{S^{\prime \prime }}^{}`$) components of the polarization measured by the FPP are given as follows,

$`p_{}^{}{}_{N^{\prime \prime }}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{}^{}{}_{N^{}}{}^{}`$ (3a)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+p_NA_N}}(P+D_{N^{}N}p_N),`$
$`p_{}^{}{}_{S^{\prime \prime }}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{}^{}{}_{S^{}}{}^{}\mathrm{cos}\chi +p_{}^{}{}_{L^{}}{}^{}\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ (3b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+p_NA_N}}[(D_{S^{}S}p_S+D_{S^{}L}p_L)\mathrm{cos}\chi `$
$`+(D_{L^{}S}p_S+D_{L^{}L}p_L)\mathrm{sin}\chi ].`$
In the measurement at 0, the projectile helicity frame and the outgoing particle helicity frame are identical. In this case, off diagonal components of the PT-observables, analyzing power, and vector polarization vanish ($`D_{SL}=D_{LS}=A_N=P=0`$) due to the spatial rotational symmetry, and Eq. (3) reduces to

$`p_{}^{}{}_{N^{\prime \prime }}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{N^{}N}p_N=D_{NN}p_N,`$ (4a)
$`p_{}^{}{}_{S^{\prime \prime }}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{S^{}S}p_S\mathrm{cos}\chi +D_{L^{}L}p_L\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ (4b)
$`=`$ $`D_{SS}p_S\mathrm{cos}\chi +D_{LL}p_L\mathrm{sin}\chi .`$
The PT-observables with non-primed suffixes ($`D_{IJ}`$) in Eq. (4) are defined in the projectile helicity frame. The $`D_{IJ}`$’s are related to PT-observables with primed suffixes ($`D_{I^{}J}`$) defined in the projectile helicity frame and the outgoing particle helicity frame by a spatial rotation of the coordinate system of outgoing particles. The $`D_{IJ}`$’s naturally become identical with the $`D_{I^{}J}`$’s at 0.

Although the transverse diagonal components of PT-observables have a simple relation $`D_{SS}=D_{NN}`$ at 0, the $`D_{SS}`$ and $`D_{NN}`$ are treated as independent observables in this experiment. The reason is that the acceptance of the spectrometer Grand Raiden is not symmetrical with respect to vertical and horizontal directions ($`|\theta _x|20`$ mrad, $`|\theta _y|35`$ mrad) and this difference breaks the relation $`D_{SS}=D_{NN}`$ by $``$10% at most.

The measurements were repeated using vertically polarized ($`p_S=p_L=0`$) and horizontally polarized ($`p_N=0`$) beams independently. In the measurements with a vertically polarized beam, the analyzing power was deduced from the asymmetry of the cross section by reversing the beam polarization. The vector polarization $`P`$ and $`D_{N^{}N}`$ were deduced from simultaneous equations about $`p_{N^{\prime \prime }}^{}`$, which were obtained from Eq. (3a) for each polarizing direction in the reversing process.

Following Eqs. (3b) and (4b), two and four independent measurements of $`p_{S^{\prime \prime }}^{}`$ with horizontally polarized beams are generally required to obtain all horizontal PT-observables at 0 and at other finite angles, respectively. On the basis of the mathematical considerations mentioned above, we measured $`p_{S^{\prime \prime }}^{}`$ under the two independent conditions with beam polarizations perpendicular to each other in the horizontal plane. In addition, for the measurements at finite angles, we used a special dipole magnet for spin rotation (DSR) MAMO89  to increase the number of independent measurements. The DSR is a magnet, which bends protons by $`+18^{}`$ or $`17^{}`$ just in front of the focal plane of the spectrometer Grand Raiden as shown in Fig. 2. The bending angles of scattered protons of the central ray are $`180^{}`$ and $`145^{}`$ for positive and negative polarities of the DSR, respectively. Then, the spin precession angles of 392 MeV protons in Grand Raiden are $`\chi ^{(+)}=458^{}`$ and $`\chi ^{()}=369^{}`$. The four independent measurements at finite angles were achieved by measuring the $`p_{S^{\prime \prime }}^{}`$ with both beam polarization axes for each DSR polarity. In the 0 measurement, the DSR was also used as a steering magnet with a bending angle of $`1^{}`$-$`2^{}`$ in order to correctly guide the proton beam into the beam dump. In this case, the spin precession angle in the spectrometer is $`\chi 412^{}`$ determined by the normal bending angle of $`162^{}`$ of Grand Raiden.

The reliability of our measurements was checked by measuring PT-observables of proton-proton elastic scattering. We simultaneously measured protons scattered from hydrogen and oxygen in the ice target at $`\theta _{lab}=6^{}`$-$`12^{}`$ since the protons are still within the momentum acceptance of Grand Raiden. The measured PT-observables for proton-proton elastic scattering agreed well with the result of the SAID calculation.

## III Theoretical Consideration

Microscopic distorted-wave impulse approximation (DWIA) calculations for $`(p,p^{})`$ reactions were performed using the computer codes DWBA98 and DWBB98 RYNA98 . The effective nucleon-nucleon interaction derived by Franey and Love (FL) FRAN85  at 425 MeV was used in the calculations. The global Dirac optical-model potential was used in the Schrödinger equivalent form HAMA90 . This potential gives a good description for existing experimental data of elastic scattering on 16O at 400 MeV CHAN85 . The one-body transition density from the shell model calculation by Brown BROW01  was used in the present work. This shell model calculation was performed within the (0+2) $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and (1+3) $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ configuration spaces for positive and negative parity states, respectively, with an interaction based on the WBP WARB92  and CD Bonn potential MACH96 . The single-particle radial wave functions were obtained for a harmonic-oscillator potential with a size parameter of $`\alpha =0.588`$ fm-1. The calculated observables were averaged over the acceptance of Grand Raiden ($`|\theta _x|20`$ mrad, $`|\theta _y|35`$ mrad) weighted by the calculated cross sections for comparison with the experimental data.

The spin-flip cross section $`(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }S=1))`$ and non-spin-flip cross section $`(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }S=0))`$ can be defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}(\mathrm{\Delta }S=1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(D_{SS}+D_{NN}+D_{LL})}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right),`$ (5a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}(\mathrm{\Delta }S=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+(D_{SS}+D_{NN}+D_{LL})}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)(1\mathrm{\Sigma })\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right),`$ (5b)
where $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a differential cross section. PT-observables in Eq. (5) are defined in the projectile helicity frame. It is known that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ value in Eq. (5) is unity for spin-flip and zero for non-spin-flip transitions at forward scattering angles where the spin-orbit interaction is negligible SAKA98 ; SUZU00b . This rule is well established for unnatural isovector transitions. For natural parity transitions, it is valid within 5% accuracy for $`\theta 5^{}`$.

To verify the applicability of this rule, $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`(1\mathrm{\Sigma })d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ were calculated by DWIA for isovector 1- states generated in the shell model space and were compared with the calculated B(E1) values, which are good measures for non-spin-flip transition strengths. The IVGDR is strongly excited by the Coulomb interaction at 0. The $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Coulomb excitation decreases with increasing excitation energy since the virtual photon flux during the collision becomes rapidly small as a function of energy. Therefore, all the calculations were performed at an excitation energy of $`E_x=15`$ MeV in order to fix the kinematic conditions.

The results are shown in the scatter plots of Fig. 3. The non-spin-flip strengths are dominant compared to the spin-flip strengths at 0 due to the Coulomb excitation of the IVGDR. Therefore, the strong linear correlation in the scatter plots at $`\theta =0^{}`$ (shown in Fig. 3(a)) is interpreted as indication that the cross sections observed at $`0^{}`$ are nearly proportional to the E1 transition strengths. The non-spin-flip cross sections are quenched at backward angles due to the destructive interference effect between the Coulomb ($`V_c`$) and isovector ($`V_\tau `$) interactions. Non-spin-flip cross sections have values much smaller than the cross sections at $`\theta =4^{}`$ as shown in Fig. 3(b). However, the correlation between non-spin-flip cross sections and B(E1)’s is still linear. Thus, we conclude that the transition strengths are reasonably separated into the spin-flip and non-spin-flip components by using $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ even at 4.

## IV Results and Discussion

The double differential cross sections at $`\theta _{lab}=0^{}`$, 4, and 8 for the 16O$`(p,p^{})`$ reaction at $`E_p=392`$ MeV are shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 6, respectively. At 8, the 16O$`(p,p^{})`$ spectra are obscured in the energy region of $`E_x=`$6$``$11 MeV due to the large background originating from hydrogen in the ice target. Therefore, the spectra in Fig. 6 are only shown for the energy region of $`E_x=`$11.2$``$29 MeV.

All low-lying discrete peaks observed between 6.05 MeV and 13.09 MeV have been identified as those of known transitions TILL93 . Table 1 lists the $`0^{}`$ cross sections in the center of mass system for these known discrete states. In the measurement where the central ray is set at $`0^{}`$, the average angle of the acceptance of the spectrometer is 1.2. The cross sections were obtained by fitting the 16O$`(p,p^{})`$ spectrum at $`0^{}`$. In the fitting procedure, Lorentzian functions with central energies and widths taken from Ref. TILL93  were used. The Lorentzian functions were folded by using a peak shape taken from the narrow states at $`E_x=`$ 6.92 and 7.12 MeV. Although broad resonance states at $`E_x=`$ 9.59, 11.26, and 11.60 MeV were taken into account to improve the fit, cross sections of the transitions to these states are not shown in Table 1 because of the large uncertainties in the fit. Since the peaks of the broad states are relatively small, the inclusion of the broad states into the fit gives no significant influence in estimating the peak area of the extracted states. The 11.10 MeV state was not separated from the neighboring state at 11.08 MeV. Similarly, the 13.09 MeV state was not separated from the 13.02 MeV state. Therefore, the summed values of the cross sections for these neighboring states are shown in Table 1.

It is known that low-lying states are mostly non-spin-flip states, called natural parity states. Therefore, these states are only observed in our non-spin-flip spectrum ($`(1\mathrm{\Sigma })d^2\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }dE`$). Excitations of the isovector states in 16O begin with $`E_x=12.8`$ MeV. The spin-flip states observed at 0 above the threshold energy ($`E_x=12.8`$ MeV) are expected to be mainly due to the isovector transitions, since the isovector spin term ($`V_{\sigma \tau }`$) in the effective interaction is much stronger than the isoscalar spin term ($`V_\sigma `$) at small momentum transfer. In fact, the spin-flip spectrum at $`0^{}`$ shown in Fig. 4(b) is quite similar to the high resolution 16O$`(p,n)`$ spectra near 0 reported in Refs. FAZE82 ; WATS94  if the threshold energy for the isovector transitions is taken into account.

A state at $`E_x13`$ MeV is strongly excited with both spin-flip and non-spin-flip components at 0. The spin-flip component of this state significantly increases at 4 as shown in Fig. 5(b). We conclude that this state consists of the mixing of three discrete states; an isovector 1- state at 13.09 MeV which is strongly excited by the Coulomb interaction at 0, an isoscalar 2+ state at 13.02 MeV, and an isovector 2- state at 12.97 MeV. Three $`1^+`$ states at 16.22, 17.14, and 18.79 MeV observed in electron scattering KUCH83  are also seen in the spin-flip spectra. The 14 MeV state, which has been tentatively assigned as 1+ or 0+ in Ref. DJAL87 , has no spin-flip strength at 0. Thus, this state is inferred to be a 0+ or 1- natural parity state. Most probably, this state could correspond to the 0+ state reported in the electron scattering experiment by Hyde-Wright HYDE84 .

### IV.1 Non-spin-flip transitions

Four broad resonance states at 20.9, 22.1, 23.0, and 24.0 MeV are observed in the non-spin-flip spectrum at 0. The cross sections of these non-spin-flip states are forward peaked which could be characterized as IVGDR or $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$ transitions. The IVGDR in 16O has been already well studied with electromagnetic probes. The total photo-absorption cross sections from Ref. AHRE75  are shown in Fig. 7(a) as a function of photon energy. The relation between photo-absorption cross sections and the reduced E1 transition matrix element B(E1) is given by Ref. BOHR75 ,

$$\sigma _{abs}𝑑E=\frac{16\pi ^3}{9\mathrm{}c}S(E1)=\frac{16\pi ^3}{9\mathrm{}c}\underset{a}{}(E_aE_0)B(E1;0a),$$
(6)
where S(E1) is the first energy moment of the B(E1) value. By using Eq. (6) and assuming the linear proportionality between the B(E1) value and non-spin-flip cross sections at 0, our results can be directly compared to those from the photo-absorption experiment. The conversion factors from B(E1) to non-spin-flip cross sections were deduced from DWIA calculations at each excitation energy to correct kinematic effects. Non-spin-flip 1- transitions were assumed in the calculation. Their wave functions were obtained from a normal-mode procedure using the computer code NORMOD WERF98 . After multiplying the converted photon absorption spectrum by a factor of 1.3, the converted spectrum agrees well with the non-spin-flip spectrum from the $`(p,p^{})`$ experiment as seen in Fig. 7(b). Contributions from the quasi-free process and the monopole resonance have to be considered, since they might reduce the difference of the excitation strengths between the $`(p,p^{})`$ results and the calculation which includes only the E1 transitions. The continuum due to the quasi-free scattering and the isoscalar giant monopole resonance (ISGMR; $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$) are expected at the same energy region as the IVGDR in the $`(p,p^{})`$ spectrum. However, the bumps due to the IVGDR are still observed in the residual spectrum after the calculated cross sections are subtracted from the non-spin-flip cross sections without any normalization factor. Thus, the normalization factor of 1.3 is required to explain the shape of the spectra. It is not clear why this normalization factor is needed.

We performed DWIA calculations using the shell model wave functions of Ref. BROW01  and the FL interaction of Ref. FRAN85 . The calculated non-spin-flip cross sections were folded by assuming that each shell model state had a Lorentzian shape with a width of 1.0 MeV. In Fig. 8, the measured spectrum for the non-spin-flip cross sections at 0 is compared with those estimated from the DWIA calculation. The gross structure of the calculated spectrum was found to be similar to the observed one. The excitation energies of the discrete isovector $`1^{}`$ state at $`E_x=13.09`$ MeV and the IVGDR located in the region of $`E_x=`$20.9$``$24 MeV are well explained. The IVGDR exhausts most of the non-spin-flip transition strengths in the calculation, while contributions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$ transitions discussed above are small. Recently, Lui et al. identified significant isoscalar E0 strengths exhausting $`48\pm 10\%`$ of the energy-weighted sum rule (EWSR) in the region of $`E_x=`$11$``$40 MeV by using the 16O($`\alpha `$, $`\alpha `$’) reaction LUI01 . The shell model calculation by Brown predicts isoscalar 0+ strengths with $`39.6\%`$ of the EWSR in the same energy region. Nevertheless, the summed $`(p,p^{})`$ cross section for the 0+ states is less than $`7\%`$ of that for the IVGDR at 0 in our calculation. One of the reasons why the isoscalar 0+ excitations are weak is that the isoscalar spin independent term ($`V_0`$) in the effective interaction becomes small around $`E_p=400`$ MeV.

The summed value of the calculated non-spin-flip cross sections up to $`E_x=29`$ MeV is 7.57 mb/sr in the laboratory frame, while the experimental value is 9.47 $`\pm `$ 0.04 mb/sr. It should be noted that the experimental value includes a contribution from the quasi-free process. If we tentatively assume that a smooth continuum due to the quasi-free process begins with the neutron emission threshold and increases with excitation energy as shown by a dashed line in Fig. 8(a), the non-spin-flip cross section of the quasi-free process is estimated to be 3.35 mb/sr and the rest of the non-spin flip cross section due to the resonant processes is 6.12 mb/sr, which is smaller by 20 $`\%`$ than the predicted value. In the case that the magnitude of the quasi-free continuum is multiplied by a factor of 0.6 as shown by the dotted line in Fig. 8(a), the experimental cross section for the resonant process becomes very close to the theoretical one.

### IV.2 Spin-flip transitions

In the spin-flip spectra shown in Figs. 4(b) and 5(b), broad bumps with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ were observed at $`E_x=`$ 19.0, 20.4, 20.9, 22.1, and 24.0 MeV. Since the bumps at 19.0 and 20.4 MeV are not seen in the non-spin-flip spectra (see Figs. 4(c) and 5(c)), they are inferred to be excited by unnatural parity transitions, and correspond to the SDR (2-) reported in electron scattering GOLD70a ; STRO70 ; KUCH83 . The other resonances at 20.9, 22.1, and 24.0 MeV, which are seen in both the spin-flip and non-spin-flip spectra, could be due to $`1^{}`$ excitations with a mixture of spin-flip and non-spin-flip characters. The resonance at 20.9 MeV was assigned as 2- in Ref. DJAL87 , but our result favors the conclusion reported by Ref. STRO70  that the 20.9 MeV state is 1-. A bump due to the excitation of a $`1^{}`$ resonance at $`E_x=23.0`$ MeV is clearly seen in Fig. 4(c). However, the corresponding bump is not observed in the spin-flip spectrum at 4 (see Fig. 5(b)). Thus, we conclude that the $`1^{}`$ transition to the 23.0 MeV resonance is dominated by a non-spin-flip component.

In Figs. 9(a) and (c), the spin-flip spectrum at $`\theta _{lab}=4^{}`$ is compared with the results of electron scattering experiments of Ref. KUCH83 . The spin-parity of the state at $`E_x=23.5`$ MeV was tentatively assigned as $`J^\pi =2^{}`$ in Refs. GOLD70a ; GOLD70b . Our assignment for the SDR (2-) is consistent with the result from the electron scattering experiments, but it is rather difficult to get a clear one-to-one correspondence for the $`2^{}`$ states at 16.82, 17.78, 18.50, and 23.5 MeV in the present experiment. The ratio of the strength of the 20.4 MeV and 19.0 MeV resonance is quite different from the result obtained in electron scattering. This difference might be due to the contribution of the orbital part in the electromagnetic interaction which does not give a sizable effect in $`(p,p^{})`$ scattering at small momentum transfer.

The spin-flip spectrum from the DWIA calculation described above is presented in Fig. 9(b). Similarly to the non-spin-flip case, it is assumed that each shell model state has a Lorentzian shape with a width of 1.0 MeV. The calculation predicts a concentration of discrete spin-flip strengths at $`E_x13`$ MeV, which is consistent with the experimental result. The theoretical and the experimental cross sections at $`\theta _{c.m.}=4.4^{}`$ (corresponding to $`\theta _{lab}=4^{}`$) for the discrete $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ transitions are summarized in Table 2. The two bumps observed at $`E_x13`$ MeV (see Fig. 9(a)) are mainly due to the three $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ states, i.e. the isoscalar 2- state at 12.53 MeV, the isovector 2- at 12.97 MeV, and the isovector 1- at 13.09 MeV. The spin-flip cross sections for several weak states are not deduced separately since the PT-observables for these states could not be extracted reliably. Their contributions are included in the values for the neighboring strong states. The theoretical calculation explains the cross sections ($`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and the spin-flip cross sections ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }`$) for the discrete $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ states quite well with exception of the underestimated strengths of the isovector 1- state at 13.09 MeV and the isoscalar $`1^{}`$ state at 12.44 MeV.

In the region of giant resonances, the calculation reproduces the experimental result that the 2- strength concentrates at an excitation energy below the $`1^{}`$ strength. This $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ splitting is expected due to the spin-orbit interaction, supporting the validity of the present calculations. The strong resonance at 20.4 MeV is predominantly due to a 2- transition, while the 22.1 MeV is due to both $`2^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ transitions according to the calculation. In addition, the shell model calculation predicts a considerable 0- strength at higher excitation energies. However, such a $`0^{}`$ strength could not be separated reliably from the quasi-free background. It is noteworthy to mention that a simple 1p-1h shell model calculation by Picklesimer and Walker PICK78  has predicted the gross structure of the SDR similar to the recent sophisticated calculation BROW01 , although the quenching problem for spin excitations was not seriously discussed before 1980’s.

The sum of the experimental spin-flip cross sections up to $`E_x=29`$ MeV, which includes the continuum, is 9.10 $`\pm `$ 0.03 mb/sr in the laboratory frame, while that of the calculation is 7.57 mb/sr. Assuming a smooth quasi-free continuum as shown in Fig. 9(a) by the dashed line, the spin-flip cross section due to the resonant processes is 5.06 mb/sr. This is smaller than the 7.57 mb/sr value from the calculation. The best agreement between experimental and calculated values is obtained if the estimated quasi-free continuum is multiplied by a factor of 0.3 shown as dotted line in Fig. 9(a).

## V Summary and Conclusion

In the present 16O$`(p,p^{})`$ experiment, spin-flip and non-spin-flip transitions were separated by measuring the polarization transfer (PT) observables. Strong peaks due to M1 transitions were observed at $`E_x=16.22`$, 17.14, and 18.77 MeV. The 14.0 MeV state, which was previously suggested to be excited by an M1 transition, is found to have non-spin-flip nature.

Non-spin-flip transitions with forward peaked cross sections were observed at excitation energies between 20 MeV and 27 MeV. These transitions are well reproduced by a calculation in which the excitation strengths are converted from the photo-absorption cross sections with a normalization factor of 1.3. Therefore, we conclude that the major part of the IVGDR strength is exhausted in the resonance region of $`E_x=`$20$``$27 MeV. The shell model calculation by Brown BROW01  also supports this conclusion. One may address a question that a significant strength due to the $`0^+`$ excitation could, in principle, exist in the IVGDR region. However, the contributions from the ISGMR are rather small according to the calculation.

Spin-flip strengths observed in the same energy region with the IVGDR are found to be excited with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ angular momentum transfer. The resonances observed at $`E_x=`$ 20.9, 22.1, and 24.0 MeV carry both IVGDR and SDR ($`1^{}`$) strengths. The resonances at $`E_x=19.0`$ and 20.4 MeV are observed only in the spin-flip spectra and are therefore assigned to be $`2^{}`$ states. The energies of strong $`2^{}`$ states observed in the present $`(p,p^{})`$ experiment agree well with those of the $`2^{}`$ states at $`E_x=12.53`$, 12.97, 19.0 and 20.3 MeV reported in electron scattering studies KUCH83 ; GOLD70a ; STRO70 ; GOLD70b . However, the strength ratios of the 19.0 and 20.4 MeV states are different. This may be attributed to the intrinsic contribution of the orbital part in electron scattering. We observed that the major part of the SDR ($`2^{}`$) strength in 16O is located at excitation energies below the SDR ($`1^{}`$) as seen in the $`A=12`$ system GAAR84 ; YANG93 ; INOM98 . This result is consistent with the expectation that the three spin components of the SDR split in excitation energy in the order of $`E_x(2^{})<E_x(1^{})<E_x(0^{})`$. The shell model calculation by Brown BROW01  reproduces well the distribution of the $`2^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ spin-flip strengths in 16O measured in this study. This calculation predicts the existence of the $`0^{}`$ transition at high excitation energies about 27 MeV. However, not enough evidence to identify the 0- strength could be found in the experiment because of its relatively weak excitation and the surrounding quasi-free background. The experimental result from the present $`(p,p^{})`$ study will be useful in estimating the neutrino absorption cross sections by 16O in the supernova neutrino observatories.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Prof. B.A. Brown, Prof. J. Raynal, Prof. K. Amos, Prof. S. Karataglidis, and Prof. S.Y. van der Werf for valuable discussions of theoretical calculations. We gratefully acknowledge the outstanding effort of the RCNP cyclotron staff for providing the clean stable beam. This research program was supported in part by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists, and by the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Science Program of the JSPS.


format: text

text:
# Uniformly convex operators and martingale type

## 1. Introduction

Banach spaces admitting an equivalent uniformly convex norm enjoy several equivalent characterizations. Among others, they are the superreflexive Banach spaces, i. e. not only is such a Banach space $`X`$ reflexive, but every Banach space whose finite dimensional subspaces can be found (uniformly) in $`X`$ is reflexive.

A connection with martingales was studied by Pisier . For $`1<p2`$, a Banach space $`X`$ has martingale type $`p`$ if there exists a constant $`c0`$ such that

$$\left(_0^1\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_k(t)^p𝑑t\right)^{1/p}c\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0^1d_k(t)^p𝑑t\right)^{1/p}$$

for all $`X`$-valued martingale difference sequences $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$.

For our purpose the fundamental result of Pisier’s paper \[14, Thm. 3.2, p. 340\] combined with James’s and Enflo’s investigations \[10, Thm. 4, p. 903\], \[6, p. 281\] can be summarized as follows. (See further down for detailed definitions.)

###### Theorem 1.

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

1. $`X`$ has martingale type $`p`$ for some $`p>1`$,
2. $`X`$ is superreflexive,
3. $`X`$ admits an equivalent uniformly convex norm,
4. $`X`$ does not factor the finite summation operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ uniformly.

If one is interested in linear operators between Banach spaces instead of just Banach spaces, the above theorem is no longer true, as can be seen by examples (see Example 3 at the end). The aim of this paper is to prove an operator-theoretic replacement of Theorem 1; see Theorem 2 in Section 5.

The main difficulties arising in this setting are the lack of a suitable substitute of J-convexity in the operator case (see Beauzamy \[2, p. 265\] for a definition of J-convexity) and the fact that the submultiplicativity of the martingale type ideal norms can no longer be exploited.

The following general method has turned out to be useful to generalize Banach space-theoretic results to results about operators.

Given a sequence of parameters $`(𝜶_n)`$ associating with every operator $`T:XY`$ a sequence of non-negative numbers $`(𝜶_n(T))`$, let $`𝜶_n(\mathrm{}):=sup𝜶_n(T)`$, where the supremum is taken over all operators $`T:XY`$ of norm $`1`$ and all Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Then the sequence $`(𝜶_n(\mathrm{}))`$ describes the ‘worst’ behavior that can occur for an operator $`T`$. In the Banach space case, one is mostly interested in the boundedness of the sequence $`(𝜶_n(I_X))`$ of the identity map of a Banach space $`X`$, i. e. $`𝜶_n(I_X)=O(1)`$. In the operator case, the behavior $`𝜶_n(T)/𝜶_n(\mathrm{})0`$, i. e. $`𝜶_n(T)=o(𝜶_n(\mathrm{}))`$ is much more useful. Another beautiful example for this heuristic in the context of Rademacher and Gauss type is given by Hinrichs in .

In particular, taking as $`𝜶_n(T)`$ the martingale type ideal norm $`𝝉_n(T)`$ formed with $`n`$ martingale differences, the condition $`𝝉_n(T)=o(\sqrt{n})`$ will be the right replacement for Condition (i) in Theorem 1.

Let us quickly review the contents of this article. In Section 2 we introduce martingale and Haar (co)type ideal norms, which are close relatives. The main result of this section is that all the $`o`$-conditions described above for these four types of ideal norms yield equivalent properties. In Section 3 we establish the connection of the martingale type ideal norms with the factorization of the finite summation operators. To do so, we use a variant of the martingale type ideal norms, namely the equal norm martingale type ideal norms. In Section 4 we repeat the definitions of uniform convexity and uniform smoothness of linear operators, introduce the super weakly compact operators and give various characterizations due to Beauzamy  connecting the two concepts. Since the main emphasis of this article is on the connection with martingales, we are rather brief here and give mostly references for the proofs. Finally in Section 5 we formulate and prove our main theorem and provide an example of an operator, for which Theorem 1 is false.

To finish this introduction, let us point out some notational conventions used throughout. We write $`B_X`$ for the unit ball of a Banach space $`X`$ and $`I_X`$ for its identity map. Furthermore, the reader has already realized, that we use Landau’s big-$`O`$ and little-$`o`$ notation.

## 2. Martingale type and cotype

First of all, we introduce the martingale type and cotype ideal norms. They were first considered by Pisier in \[14, Rem. 3.3, p. 346\]. We also consider Haar type and cotype ideal norms as restrictions of martingale type and cotype ideal norms to special classes of martingales. An operator is said to have the corresponding subtype or subcotype, if these sequences of ideal norms behave just a little better than the worst case. The main result of this section will be that all four possible subtype and subcotype properties coincide.

Let us start by considering an arbitrary martingale $`(f_k)`$ defined on $`[0,1)`$ with values in a Banach space $`X`$ and adapted to a filtration $`_0_1\mathrm{}`$ of finitely generated $`\sigma `$-algebras. We denote by $`E_k`$ the operator of conditional expectation with respect to the $`\sigma `$-algebra $`_k`$.

In particular, taking for $`_k`$ the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by the dyadic intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(j)}:=[\frac{j1}{2^k},\frac{j}{2^k})`$, we obtain the so called *Walsh-Paley* or *dyadic* martingales. Since the corresponding martingales $`f_n`$ are just linear combinations of the Haar functions $`\chi _k^{(j)}`$ for $`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},2^{k1}`$, we also use the term *Haar polynomials* to denote the functions $`f_n`$ in this case. Remember, that the Haar functions $`\chi _k^{(j)}`$ are defined by

$$\chi _k^{(j)}(t):=\{\begin{array}{cc}+2^{(k1)/2}\hfill & \text{if }t\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(2j1)}\text{,}\hfill \\ 2^{(k1)/2}\hfill & \text{if }t\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(2j)}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

We let $`\chi _0^{(0)}1`$.

We will mainly deal with the sequence of martingale differences $`(d_k)`$ instead of $`(f_k)`$, where $`d_1=f_1`$ and $`d_k=f_kf_{k1}`$ for $`k>1`$. The Banach space of square integrable $`X`$-valued functions on $`[0,1)`$ is denoted by $`[L_2,X]`$. For $`f[L_2,X]`$ we write

$$f|L_2:=(_0^1f(t)^2dt)^{1/2}.$$

The fact that $`E_kf|L_2f|L_2`$ for all $`f[L_2,X]`$ and $`k`$ will be frequently used.

With each operator $`T:XY`$ we associate the operator $`[L_2,T]:[L_2,X][L_2,Y]`$, defined by

$$[L_2,T]f(t):=T\left(f(t)\right).$$

For any two functions $`f[L_2,X]`$ and $`g^{}[L_2,Y^{}]`$ we write

$$[L_2,T]f,g^{}:=_0^1Tf(t),g^{}(t)𝑑t.$$

###### Definition.

For $`T:XY`$, the $`n`$-th *martingale type ideal norm* $`𝝉(T|_n)`$ is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2c(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_k|L_2^2)^{1/2}$$

for all $`X`$-valued martingale difference sequences $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ adapted to any filtration on $`[0,1)`$.

The $`n`$-th *martingale cotype ideal norm* $`𝜸(T|_n)`$ is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

$$(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2^2)^{1/2}c\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_k|L_2$$

for all $`X`$-valued martingale difference sequences $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ adapted to any filtration on $`[0,1)`$.

Note that, for norm one operators, both sequences $`(𝝉(T|_n))`$ and $`(𝜸(T|_n))`$ are bounded by $`2\sqrt{n}`$ and therefore the following definition makes sense.

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ has *martingale subtype* or *martingale subcotype* if $`𝝉(T|_n)/\sqrt{n}0`$ or $`𝜸(T|_n)/\sqrt{n}0`$, respectively.

For convenience we introduce the following notation for the *dyadic trees:*

$$𝔻_m^n:=\{(k,j):k=m,\mathrm{},n;j=1,\mathrm{},2^{k1}\}\text{for }1mn\text{.}$$

We let $`𝔻_0^n:=𝔻_1^n\{(0,0)\}`$.

###### Definition.

For $`T:XY`$, the *Haar type ideal norm* $`𝝉(T|(𝔻_m^n))`$ associated with the index set $`𝔻_m^n`$ is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

$$\underset{𝔻_m^n}{}Tx_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2c(\underset{𝔻_m^n}{}x_k^{(j)}^2)^{1/2}$$

for all $`(x_k^{(j)})X`$.

The *Haar cotype ideal norm* $`𝜸(T|(𝔻_m^n))`$ associated with the index set $`𝔻_m^n`$ is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

$$(\underset{𝔻_m^n}{}Tx_k^{(j)}^2)^{1/2}c\underset{𝔻_m^n}{}x_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2$$

for all $`(x_k^{(j)})X`$.

As before, we will be interested in the suboptimal behavior of these sequences.

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ has *Haar subtype* or *Haar subcotype* if $`𝝉(T|(𝔻_0^n))/\sqrt{n}0`$ or $`𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))/\sqrt{n}0`$, respectively.

It is easily verified that

$`𝝉(T|(𝔻_1^n))𝝉(T|(𝔻_0^n))2𝝉(T|(𝔻_1^n)),`$
$`𝜸(T|(𝔻_1^n))𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))3𝜸(T|(𝔻_1^n)).`$
Since for any $`(x_k^{(j)})X`$ the sequence of functions $`d_k:=_{j=1}^{2^{k1}}x_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}`$ forms a sequence of martingale differences, we obviously have

(1)
$$𝝉(T|(𝔻_1^n))𝝉(T|_n)\text{and}𝜸(T|(𝔻_1^n))𝜸(T|_n).$$

No reverse estimate is known. In the limiting case where one of these sequences of ideal norms behaves like $`o(\sqrt{n})`$ we have, however, equivalence.

###### Proposition 1.

For any operator $`T:XY`$ the following properties are equivalent:

1. $`T`$ has martingale subtype,
2. $`T`$ has martingale subcotype,
3. $`T`$ has Haar subtype,
4. $`T`$ has Haar subcotype.

We postpone the proof of Proposition 1 in order to provide some prerequisites. The main idea of the proof is contained in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`T:XY`$, then we have

$$\frac{𝝉(T|_{2^n})}{2^{n/2}}3\frac{𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))}{n^{1/2}}.$$

###### Proof.

Given any sequence $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{2^n})`$ of $`X`$-valued martingale differences, define a function $`F_n:[0,1)\times [0,1)X`$ by $`F_n(s,t):=d_i(t)`$ if $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(i)}`$.

Obviously

$$_0^1_0^1F_n(s,t)^2dtds=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(i)}}_0^1F_n(s,t)^2dtds=\frac{1}{2^n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}d_i|L_2^2.$$

Viewing $`F_n(,t)`$ as a Haar polynomial, we have

$$F_n(s,t)=\underset{𝔻_0^n}{}x_k^{(j)}(t)\chi _k^{(j)}(s)$$

where the functions $`x_k^{(j)}`$ are defined by $`x_k^{(j)}(t):=_0^1F_n(s,t)\chi _k^{(j)}(s)𝑑s`$. By the definition of $`𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))`$ we have

$$\underset{𝔻_0^n}{}Tx_k^{(j)}(t)^2𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))^2\underset{𝔻_0^n}{}x_k^{(j)}(t)\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2^2.$$

Integration with respect to $`t[0,1)`$ yields

(2) $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝔻_0^n}{}}[L_2,T]x_k^{(j)}|L_2^2`$ $``$ $`𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))^2F_n|L_2^2`$
$`=`$ $`𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}}d_i|L_2^2.`$
Letting $`_k^{(j)}:=\{i:\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(i)}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(j)}\}`$ and observing that $`_{k1}^{(j)}=_k^{(2j1)}_k^{(2j)}`$, we obtain for $`x_k^{(j)}`$

$`x_k^{(j)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}F_n(s,t)\chi _k^{(j)}(s)𝑑s=2^{(k1)/2}\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(2j1)}}}F_n(s,t)𝑑s{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(2j)}}}F_n(s,t)𝑑s\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2^{(k1)/2n}\left({\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}}d_i(t){\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j)}}{}}d_i(t)\right).`$
This implies that

(3)
$$[L_2,T]x_k^{(j)}|L_2=2^{(k1)/2n}\underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}[L_2,T]d_i\underset{_k^{(2j)}}{}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2.$$

Since the conditional expectation operator has norm one in $`[L_2,X]`$ it now follows that

$$\underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2\underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}[L_2,T]d_i\underset{_k^{(2j)}}{}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2$$

and therefore by the triangle inequality

(4) $`{\displaystyle \underset{_{k1}^{(j)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2+2{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2`$
$``$ $`3{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2.`$
Using (2), (3) and (4) the proof completes as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{_{k1}^{(j)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2^2)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{_{k1}^{(j)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2)^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`3({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}2^{k1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i{\displaystyle \underset{_k^{(2j)}}{}}[L_2,T]d_i|L_2^2)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`3({\displaystyle \frac{2^{2n}}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}}[L_2,T]x_k^{(j)}|L_2^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))({\displaystyle \frac{2^n}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}}d_i|L_2^2)^{1/2}.`$
We next observe that the martingale and Haar type and cotype ideal norms are dual to each other.

###### Proposition 2.

For $`0m<n`$ we have

$`𝜸(T|(𝔻_m^n))`$ $`𝝉(T^{}|(𝔻_m^n))`$ $`2𝜸(T|(𝔻_m^n)),`$
$`𝜸(T^{}|(𝔻_m^n))`$ $`𝝉(T|(𝔻_m^n))`$ $`2𝜸(T^{}|(𝔻_m^n)).`$
If $`m=0`$, we can omit the factors $`2`$ and have equality. On the other hand

$`𝜸(T|_n)`$ $`2𝝉(T^{}|_n)`$ $`4𝜸(T|_n),`$
$`𝜸(T^{}|_n)`$ $`2𝝉(T|_n)`$ $`4𝜸(T^{}|_n).`$
###### Proof.

The proof can be obtained using standard duality techniques and is left to the reader. ∎

We can now prove Proposition 1.

###### Proof.

It follows from Lemma 1 and (1) that

$$\frac{𝝉(T|_{2^n})}{2^{n/2}}3\frac{𝜸(T|(𝔻_0^n))}{n^{1/2}}6\frac{𝜸(T|_n))}{n^{1/2}}.$$

Since the same is true for $`T^{}`$, it follows from Proposition 2 that

$$\frac{𝜸(T|_{2^n})}{2^{n/2}}6\frac{𝝉(T|(𝔻_0^n))}{n^{1/2}}12\frac{𝝉(T|_n))}{n^{1/2}}.$$

Hence if one of these quotients tends to zero, all the others tend to zero too, which proves the proposition by virtue of the monotonicity of the involved ideal norms. ∎

## 3. Equal norm martingale type

###### Definition.

For $`T:XY`$, the $`n`$-th *equal norm martingale type ideal norm* $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$ is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2c(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_k|L_2^2)^{1/2}$$

for all $`X`$-valued martingale difference sequences $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ adapted to any filtration on $`[0,1)`$ under the additional assumption that $`d_1|L_2=\mathrm{}=d_n|L_2`$.

The quantities $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$ can also be defined in a different way.

###### Lemma 2.

For $`T:XY`$, the ideal norm $`𝛕^{}(T|_n)`$ is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

(5)
$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2cn^{1/2}\underset{k=1,\mathrm{},n}{sup}d_k|L_2$$

for all $`X`$-valued martingale difference sequences $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ adapted to any filtration on $`[0,1)`$.

###### Proof.

For the time being denote by $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$ the smallest constant such that (5) holds. It is obvious that for $`d_1|L_2=\mathrm{}=d_n|L_2`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2`$ $``$ $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)n^{1/2}\underset{k=1,\mathrm{},n}{sup}d_k|L_2^2`$
$`=`$ $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d_k|L_2^2)^{1/2}.`$
Therefore $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$.

On the other hand, let $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ be an arbitrary sequence of martingale differences. It follows that for $`\stackrel{~}{d}_k:=d_k/d_k|L_2`$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]\stackrel{~}{d}_k|L_2𝝉^{}(T|_n)n^{1/2}.$$

But the same is true for $`\zeta _k\stackrel{~}{d}_k`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_k`$, where $`|\zeta _k|=1`$. An extreme point argument then yields that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]\alpha _k\stackrel{~}{d}_k|L_2𝝉^{}(T|_n)n^{1/2}$$

whenever $`|\alpha _k|1`$. In particular, we may take

$$\alpha _k:=\frac{d_k|L_2}{\underset{h=1,\mathrm{},n}{sup}d_h|L_2},$$

which shows that $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$. ∎

Obviously we have

$$𝝉^{}(T|_n)𝝉(T|_n).$$

The main purpose of this section is to prove a reverse estimate. We follow an approach similar to Bourgain/Kalton/Tzafriri in \[3, Thm. 3.1., p. 160\] where they show that equal norm Rademacher type $`2`$ is equivalent to ordinary Rademacher type $`2`$. The main idea is contained in the following construction of ‘glueing’ together $`m`$ copies of a given martingale of length $`n`$, which yields a martingale of length $`mn`$ with smaller differences. An appropriate blocking of this longer martingale will then give a martingale of length of order $`n`$ and nearly equal $`L_2`$-norms.

Let $`\varphi _j^m:[\frac{j1}{m},\frac{j}{m})[0,1)`$ be defined by $`\varphi _j^m(t):=mtj+1`$. Given a function $`f:[0,1)X`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^mf`$ the function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j^mf(t):=\{\begin{array}{cc}f(\varphi _j^m(t))\hfill & \text{if }t[\frac{j1}{m},\frac{j}{m})\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Given a sequence of martingale differences $`(\sigma _k)`$, the sequence of martingale differences

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^md_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^md_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1^md_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^md_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^md_n,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^md_n$$

is adapted to the filtration

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^m_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^m_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1^m_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^m_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^m_n,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^m_n,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^m_k`$ is the $`\sigma `$-algebra generated by all sets $`A[0,1)`$ such that $`\varphi _j^m(A)_k`$ and by all its predecessor $`\sigma `$-algebras.

Observe that

(6)
$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^md_k|L_2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_k|L_2\text{and}\mathrm{\Phi }_j^md_k|L_2^2=\frac{1}{m}d_k|L_2^2.$$

Moreover, all differences $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^md_k`$ in any block of length at most $`m`$ have disjoint support.

###### Lemma 3.

The sequence $`(𝛕^{}(T|_n))`$ is non-decreasing.

###### Proof.

Let $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ be $`X`$-valued martingale differences such that $`d_k|L_2=1`$. For $`m:=n+1`$ the construction above yields a martingale difference sequence of length $`n(n+1)`$. Define a new sequence of martingale differences $`\stackrel{~}{d}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{d}_{n+1}`$ by blocking $`n`$ consecutive terms:

$$\stackrel{~}{d}_h:=\mathrm{\Phi }_{nh+3}^md_{h1}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1}^md_{h1}+\mathrm{\Phi }_1^md_h+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{nh+1}^md_h.$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{d}_h|L_2=\sqrt{\frac{n}{n+1}}`$ it follows that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2=\underset{h=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}[L_2,T]\stackrel{~}{d}_h|L_2𝝉^{}(T|_{n+1})(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}d_k|L_2^2)^{1/2},$$

which proves that $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)𝝉^{}(T|_{n+1})`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.

$`𝝉(T|_n)16𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_n`$ be $`X`$-valued martingale differences. By scaling we may assume that $`_{k=1}^nd_k|L_2^2=1`$.

Let $`l`$ be such that $`4^l16n<4^{l+1}`$ and $`m:=4^l`$. For $`h=1,2\mathrm{}`$ define

$$𝔽_h:=\{k:\frac{1}{2^h}<d_k|L_2\frac{2}{2^h}\}\text{and}𝔽:=\underset{h=1}{\overset{l}{}}𝔽_h.$$

First of all, we estimate the sum of all the differences with small norm:

(7) $`{\displaystyle \underset{k𝔽}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2`$ $``$ $`𝝉(T|_n)({\displaystyle \underset{k𝔽}{}}d_k|L_2^2)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`𝝉(T|_n)(n4^l)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝝉(T|_n).`$
Here we used, that the sequence $`(𝝉(T|_n))`$ is obviously non-decreasing and that $`16n<4^{l+1}`$.

For the martingale difference sequence $`(d_k)`$ with $`k𝔽`$ we apply the glueing technique described above. Then it follows from (6) that for $`k𝔽_h`$

$$\frac{1}{m4^h}<\mathrm{\Phi }_j^md_k|L_2^2=\frac{1}{m}d_k|L_2^2\frac{4}{m4^h}.$$

Therefore by disjointness, for any subset $`𝕃\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ of cardinality $`|𝕃|=4^h`$

$$\frac{1}{m}<\underset{i𝕃}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^md_k|L_2^2\frac{4}{m}.$$

Writing $`𝕃_j^{(h)}:=\{4^h(j1)+1,\mathrm{}4^hj\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_j^k:=_{i𝕃_j^{(h)}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^md_k`$ we obtain a martingale of length

$$N:=\underset{h=1}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{k𝔽_h}{}4^{lh}4^l\underset{h=1}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{k𝔽_h}{}d_k|L_2^24^l16n.$$

It follows from Lemma 3 that $`𝝉^{}(T|_N)𝝉^{}(T|_{16n})`$ and therefore, we obtain from Lemma 2 that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{h=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k𝔽_h}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4^{lh}}{}}}[L_2,T]\stackrel{~}{d}_j^k|L_2`$ $``$ $`𝝉^{}(T|_N)sup\stackrel{~}{d}_j^k|L_2\sqrt{N}`$
$``$ $`𝝉^{}(T|_{16n}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{m}}}2^l=2𝝉^{}(T|_{16n}).`$
This shows that

(8)
$$\underset{k𝔽}{}[L_2,T]d_k|L_22𝝉^{}(T|_{16n}).$$

Putting together (7) and (8) we obtain

$$𝝉(T|_n)\frac{1}{2}𝝉(T|_n)+2𝝉^{}(T|_{16n}),$$

which implies $`𝝉(T|_n)4𝝉^{}(T|_{16n})`$. Finally the assertion follows from the trivial fact that $`𝝉^{}(T|_{16n})4𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$. ∎

The *summation operator* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:l_1l_{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi _k):=\left(\underset{h=1}{\overset{k}{}}\xi _h\right),$$

while the *finite summation operators* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n:l_1^nl_{\mathrm{}}^n`$ act between the finite dimensional spaces and are defined in the same way.

The significance of the ideal norms $`𝝉^{}(T|_n)`$ is due to the following fact, which establishes the connection with the factorization of the finite summation operators.

###### Proposition 3.

There exists a factorization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=B_n[L_2,T]A_n`$ of the finite summation operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, such that $`B_nA_n6\sqrt{n}/𝛕^{}(T|_{2n})`$.

###### Proof.

There is nothing to prove for $`T=0`$. For $`T0`$, by definition, for all $`0<\delta <1`$, there exists a sequence of martingale differences $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_{2n}`$ such that $`d_k|L_2=1`$ and

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{2n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2>\delta 𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})\sqrt{2n}.$$

Choose $`g^{}[L_2,Y^{}]`$ such that $`g^{}|L_2=1`$ and

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{2n}{}}[L_2,T]d_k,g^{}>\delta 𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})\sqrt{2n}.$$

Let

$$𝔽:=\{k:[L_2,T]d_k,g^{}>𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})\frac{\delta }{4\sqrt{2n}}\}.$$

It follows from Lemma 3 that

$$\underset{k𝔽}{}[L_2,T]d_k,g^{}\underset{k𝔽}{}[L_2,T]d_k|L_2g^{}|L_2𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})|𝔽|^{1/2}$$

and therefore

$`\delta 𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})\sqrt{2n}`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k𝔽}{}}[L_2,T]d_k,g^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{k𝔽}{}}[L_2,T]d_k,g^{}`$
$``$ $`𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})|𝔽|^{1/2}+2n𝝉^{}(T|_{2n}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{4\sqrt{2n}}}.`$
This shows that $`m:=|𝔽|\delta ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}n/8`$. Choosing $`\delta `$ appropriately, we may arrange that $`mn`$. In particular, we find elements $`i_1<\mathrm{}<i_n`$ in $`𝔽`$.

We can now define $`A_n:l_1^n[L_2,X]`$ by

$$A_ne_k:=\frac{d_{i_k}}{[L_2,T]d_{i_k},g^{}}$$

and $`B_n:[L_2,Y]l_{\mathrm{}}^n`$ by

$$B_nf:=\left(f,E_{i_k}g^{}\right)_{k=1}^n.$$

## 4. Uniform convexity and smoothness and super weakly compact operators

We now show, how the concepts above connect to the theory of weakly compact operators.

First of all, we repeat the classical definitions of uniform convexity and uniform smoothness of Banach spaces in the more general case of linear operators between Banach spaces. See e. g. Beauzamy \[1, Def. 7, p. 121\].

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is *uniformly convex* if for all $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that for $`x_\pm =1`$ with $`\frac{x_++x_{}}{2}1\delta `$ it follows that $`\frac{Tx_+Tx_{}}{2}\epsilon `$.

The operator $`T`$ is *uniformly smooth* if for all $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that for $`y=1`$ and $`x\delta `$ it follows that $`\frac{y+Tx+yTx}{2}1+\epsilon x`$.

Using an equivalent norm on the target space $`Y`$ does not spoil uniform convexity. This is, however, not the case for the source space $`X`$. Similarly, uniform smoothness depends on the special choice of the norm on the target space. We are therefore rather interested in uniformly convex renormable and uniformly smooth renormable operators.

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is *uniformly convex renormable* if there exists an equivalent norm $`||||||`$ on $`X`$ such that $`T:[X,||||||]Y`$ is uniformly convex.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is *uniformly smooth renormable* if there exists an equivalent norm $`||||||`$ on $`Y`$ such that $`T:X[Y,||||||]`$ is uniformly smooth.

The above properties are equivalent to $`T`$ factoring through a uniformly convex or uniformly smooth Banach space, respectively; see \[13, Prop. 7.10.11\].

As in the case of Banach spaces, we can easily show that the concepts of uniform convexity and smoothness are dual to each other. See Lindenstrauss \[11, Thm. 1\] for a proof in the Banach space case, which can easily be carried over to linear operators.

###### Proposition 4.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is uniformly convex if and only if its dual $`T^{}:Y^{}X^{}`$ is uniformly smooth.

The operator $`T`$ is uniformly smooth if and only if $`T^{}`$ is uniformly convex.

Next we introduce super weakly compact operators, whose Banach space counterparts are the superreflexive Banach spaces, and show their connection with the factorization of the summation operators. Again, this basically follows from the, by now, classical proof that superreflexive Banach spaces do not factor the summation operators uniformly, cf. James , Beauzamy \[2, Prop. 7, p. 236\], or Heinrich \[7, Thm. 5.1, p. 29\].

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is *weakly compact*, if the image of the closed unit ball of $`X`$ under $`T`$ is relatively weakly compact in $`Y`$.

For the theory of ultraproducts of Banach spaces and linear operators, we refer to Heinrich’s papers . We mainly use the notation of Pietsch/Wenzel .

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is *super weakly compact*, if all its ultrapowers $`T^𝒰:X^𝒰Y^𝒰`$ are weakly compact.

The summation operator is the typical non-weakly compact operator.

###### Example 1.

The summation operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not weakly compact.

###### Definition.

An operator $`T:XY`$ is said to *factor the summation operator* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, if there exist operators $`A:l_1X`$ and $`B:Yl_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=BTA`$.

The operator $`T`$ is said to *factor the finite summation operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ uniformly*, if there exists a constant $`c>0`$, such that for all $`n`$ we can find factorizations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=B_nTA_n`$ such that $`B_nA_nc`$.

The next proposition connects the above concepts.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`T:XY`$, then the following properties are equivalent:

1. $`T`$ is super weakly compact,
2. $`T^𝒰`$ does not factor the summation operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for any ultrafilter $`𝒰`$,
3. $`T`$ does not factor the finite summation operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ uniformly.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of (i) and (ii) is due to Lindenstrauss/Pełczyński .

Assume that $`T:XY`$ factors the finite summation operators uniformly and let $`𝒰`$ be any non-trivial ultrafilter on $``$.

Let $`J`$ be the canonical map from $`l_1`$ into $`l_1^𝒰`$ induced by the map $`x(x,x,\mathrm{})`$. Note moreover, that the map $`(x_n)\text{w}\text{}\text{-}lim_𝒰x_n`$ induces a well defined operator $`Q`$ from $`l_{\mathrm{}}^𝒰`$ onto $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$. The last fact is due to the weak-$``$-compactness of the closed unit ball of $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$. Obviously $`J=Q=1`$.

By the assumption, there exists a constant $`c`$, such that we find for all $`n`$ operators $`A_n:l_1^nX`$ and $`B_n:Yl_{\mathrm{}}^n`$ satisfying $`A_n1`$, $`B_nc`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=B_nTA_n`$.

Denote furthermore by $`J_n`$ the canonical embedding of $`l_{\mathrm{}}^n`$ into $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ and by $`Q_n`$ the projection from $`l_1`$ onto $`l_1^n`$.

We obtain a factorization of the summation operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ via $`T^𝒰`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=Q(J_n\mathrm{\Sigma }_nQ_n)^𝒰J=Q(J_nB_n)^𝒰T^𝒰(A_nQ_n)^𝒰J.$$

This proves that (ii) $``$ (iii).

If on the other hand (ii) does not hold, then $`T^𝒰`$ factors $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for some ultrafilter $`𝒰`$. In the sense of Heinrich \[7, Def. 1.1, p. 7\], $`T^𝒰`$ is finitely representable in $`T`$, i. e. for all $`\epsilon >0`$ and each finite dimensional subspace $`\widehat{X}_0X^𝒰`$ and finite codimensional subspace $`\widehat{Y}_0Y^𝒰`$ there are a finite dimensional subspace $`X_0X`$ and a finite codimensional subspace $`Y_0Y`$ and maps $`R:\widehat{X}_0X_0`$ and $`S:Y/Y_0Y^𝒰/\widehat{Y}_0`$ such that

$$\widehat{Q}T^𝒰\widehat{J}SQTJR\epsilon ,$$

where $`J`$ and $`\widehat{J}`$ are the canonical embedding maps of $`X_0`$ and $`\widehat{X}_0`$ and $`Q`$ and $`\widehat{Q}`$ are the canonical quotient maps of $`Y_0`$ and $`\widehat{Y}_0`$.

It follows, that for all $`n`$ there is a subspace $`X_0X`$ and a subspace $`Y_0Y`$ and operators $`R:l_1^nX_0`$ and $`S:Y/Y_0l_{\mathrm{}}^n`$, such that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_nSQTJR\epsilon .$$

Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ is injective, by the remark following Definition 1.1 in \[7, p. 8\], we can even arrange that $`\epsilon =0`$. This implies that $`T`$ factors $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ uniformly. ∎

It was shown in Beauzamy \[1, Thm. I.1, p. 111\] that uniform convex renormability and super weak compactness are in fact equivalent properties. See also Heinrich’s paper \[7, Thm. 5,p. 29\] and the detailed presentation in Pietsch/Wenzel \[13, Sect. 7.6\].

One obtains the following equivalences.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`T:XY`$, then the following properties are equivalent:

1. $`T`$ is super weakly compact,
2. $`T`$ is uniformly convex renormable,
3. $`T`$ does not factor the finite summation operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ uniformly.

## 5. Main theorem

Before we can formulate and prove the main theorem some more preparations are required.

The following classical result provides the missing link between the operators $`T`$ and $`[L_2,T]`$. It was first proved by Day \[5, Thm. 2, p. 504\] for Banach spaces, but Day’s proof can straightforwardly be extended to the operator case.

###### Proposition 7.

The operator $`T`$ is uniformly convex if and only if $`[L_2,T]`$ is uniformly convex.

Finally, we will need the Haar cotype ideal norms of the finite summation operators.

###### Example 2.

$`\frac{1}{2}(n+1)^{1/2}𝜸_n(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2^n}|(𝔻_0^n))(n+1)^{1/2}.`$

###### Proof.

Obviously, for any operator $`T:XY`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝔻_0^n}{}}Tx_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2`$ $``$ $`(n+1)^{1/2}({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}}Tx_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2^2)^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)^{1/2}({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}}Tx_k^{(j)}^2\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2^2)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`(n+1)^{1/2}T\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝔻_0^n}{}}x_k^{(j)}^2\right)^{1/2},`$
where we have used that for fixed $`k`$ the Haar functions $`\chi _k^{(1)},\mathrm{},\chi _k^{(2^{k1})}`$ have disjoint support. This proves the upper estimate by virtue of Proposition 2.

To see the lower estimate, let $`f:[0,1)l_1^{2^n}`$ be defined by

$$f(t):=e_i\text{if }t\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(i)}\text{,}$$

where $`e_i`$ is the $`i`$-th unit vector in $`l_1^{2^n}`$. Write $`f`$ as a Haar polynomial

$$f=\underset{𝔻_0^n}{}x_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)},\text{where}x_k^{(j)}=_0^1f(t)\chi _k^{(j)}(t)𝑑t.$$

Obviously

$$f|L_2=\underset{𝔻_0^n}{}x_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_2=(\frac{1}{2^n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^n}{}}e_i^2)^{1/2}=1.$$

Writing $`_k^{(j)}:=\{i:\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(i)}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(j)}\}`$, it follows that

$$x_k^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2^n}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(k1)/2}(0,\mathrm{},0\underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{\underset{}{+1,\mathrm{},+1}},\underset{_k^{(2j)}}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{},1}},0,\mathrm{},0)$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2^n}x_k^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2^n}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(k1)/2}(0,\mathrm{},0\underset{_k^{(2j1)}}{\underset{}{1,2,\mathrm{},2^{nk}}},\underset{_k^{(2j)}}{\underset{}{2^{nk}1,\mathrm{},1,0}},0,\mathrm{},0),$$

which in turn yields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2^n}x_k^{(j)}=2^{(k+1)/2}`$. Hence

$$\left(\underset{𝔻_0^n}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2^n}x_k^{(j)}^2\right)^{1/2}=\frac{1}{2}(n+1)^{1/2},$$

which proves the assertion. ∎

We are now ready to state our most important result.

###### Theorem 2.

For an operator $`T:XY`$ the following properties are equivalent:

1. $`T`$ has martingale subtype,
2. $`T`$ has martingale subcotype,
3. $`T`$ has Haar subtype,
4. $`T`$ has Haar subcotype,
5. $`T`$ is super weakly compact,
6. $`T`$ does not factor the finite summation operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ uniformly,
7. $`T`$ is uniformly convex renormable,
8. $`[L_2,T]`$ is uniformly convex renormable,
9. $`T`$ is uniformly smooth renormable.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of (i)(iv) was shown in Proposition 1.

The equivalence of (v)(vii) was shown in Proposition 6.

Proposition 7 shows that (vii) and (viii) are equivalent, hence all the properties (v)(vii) for $`T`$ and (v)(vii) for $`[L_2,T]`$ are equivalent.

Assume that (i) does not hold. Then for some $`c>0`$ there are infinitely many numbers $`n`$, such that

$$\frac{𝝉(T|_n)}{\sqrt{n}}c.$$

It follows from Lemma 4 that for these numbers

$$\frac{6\sqrt{n}}{𝝉^{}(T|_{2n})}\frac{6\sqrt{n}}{𝝉(T|_{2n})}\frac{6}{c}$$

and therefore, by Proposition 3 there exist factorizations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=B_n[L_2,T]A_n`$ such that $`B_nA_n6/c`$. Of course, this yields such factorizations for *all* $`n`$ and therefore (vi) cannot hold for $`[L_2,T]`$.

Hence we have shown that (vi) implies (i).

On the other hand Example 2 shows that (iv) implies (vi).

So far, we have shown that (i)(viii) are equivalent.

Finally, since by Proposition 2 properties (i)(iv) for $`T`$ are equivalent to the same properties for $`T^{}`$, it follows from Proposition 4 that also (ix) is equivalent to (vii) and hence to all other properties. ∎

###### Remark.

Note that Pisier’s Theorem 1 can easily be obtained from our Theorem 2 using the submultiplicativity of the ideal norms $`𝝉(I_X|_n)`$. Namely, it follows from $`𝝉(I_X|_n)=o(n^{1/2})`$ and the submultiplicativity, that there is a constant $`c`$ and a number $`p_0>1`$ such that

$$𝝉(I_X|_n)cn^{1/p_01/2}\text{for all }n\text{.}$$

By Pisier , this implies that $`X`$ has martingale type $`p`$ for all $`p<p_0`$.

To formulate the last example, we will need one more definition.

###### Definition.

For $`T:XY`$, the *Haar type $`p`$ ideal norm* $`𝝉_p(T|(𝔻_1^n))`$, is the smallest constant $`c0`$ such that

$$\underset{𝔻_1^n}{}[L_2,T]x_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_pc(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{k1}}{}}x_k^{(j)}\chi _k^{(j)}|L_p^p)^{1/p}$$

for all $`(x_k^{(j)})X`$.

In particular, $`𝝉_2(T|(𝔻_1^n))=𝝉(T|(𝔻_1^n))`$. An operator $`T`$ is said to have martingale type $`p`$ if the sequence $`(𝝉_p(T|(𝔻_1^n)))`$ is bounded.

The following example shows that an analogue of the Davis–Figiel–Johnson–Pełczyński Theorem on weakly compact operators (they factor through a reflexive Banach space; see \[4, Cor. 1, p. 314\]) cannot hold for super weakly compact operators, since if $`T`$ factors through a superreflexive Banach space then it follows already that it has martingale type $`p`$ for some $`p>1`$; see \[14, Thm. 3.2, p. 340\].

Let $`t=(\tau _n)`$ be a non-increasing sequence of positive numbers. We consider the diagonal operator $`D_t:l_1l_1`$ defined by $`D_t(\xi _k):=(\tau _k\xi _k)`$.

The following fact is proved in .

###### Example 3.

$`𝝉_p(D_t|(𝔻_1^n))=\left(_{k=1}^n|\tau _k|^p^{}\right)^{1/p^{}}.`$

###### Corollary.

If $`\tau _k=1/(1+\mathrm{log}k)`$ then the operator $`D_t`$ is super weakly compact but does not have martingale type $`p`$ for any $`p>1`$ and hence does not factor through a superreflexive Banach space.