format: text

text:
# Gauged Neural Network: Phase Structure, Learning, and Associative Memory

## I Introduction

Our brains exhibit various complicated functions like recognition, thinking, etc. In particular, it is quite interesting to understand the mechanism of storing and restoring particular concepts, i.e., how to learn and recall them. It is challenging to construct a mathematical model to describe the essence of learning and recalling.

In the framework of neural network, it is well known that the Hopfield model of associative memory offers us a reasonable mechanism how to recall the images and patterns that one has once learned. In the Hopfield model, the state of the $`i`$-th neuron, excited or unexcited, is described by the Z(2) variable $`S_i(=\pm 1)(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$, and the state of the synaptic connection between the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th neurons is expressed by its strength (weight), $`J_{ij}`$, to transmit signals, which is a preassigned real constant. The signal at the $`j`$-th site at time $`t`$ propagates to the $`i`$-th site through the axon and the synaptic connection in the form $`J_{ij}S_j(t)`$ to affect the state $`S_i`$ in the next time step $`t+ϵ`$ as

$`S_i(t+ϵ)=\mathrm{sgn}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}J_{ij}S_j(t)\right].`$ (1.1)
Physically, $`S_j`$ is the signature of the electric potential at the $`j`$-th neuron (membrane potential) measured from a certain common level, and $`J_{ij}`$ is the conversion factor to propagate the potential from $`j`$ to $`i`$. So the quantity $`_jJ_{ij}S_j`$ in the bracket is just the total amount of potential accumulated at the $`i`$-th neuron. The case $`J_{ij}>0`$ enhances the tendency that the $`i`$-th neuron shall take the same state as that at $`j`$, $`S_i=S_j`$, while the case $`J_{ij}<0`$ suppresses it, favoring the opposite state, $`S_i=S_j`$.

The time evolution (1.1), when applied to all the variables $`S_i`$ in an asynchronous manner, is known to decrease (not increase) the following “energy”,

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_iJ_{ij}S_j.`$ (1.2)
Let us prepare $`M`$ patterns $`S_i=\xi _i^\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},M)`$ (which are mutually orthogonal, $`_i\xi _i^\alpha \xi _i^\beta =N\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$) as the patterns to learn. One may choose $`J_{ij}`$ so that each of these patterns, $`S_i=\xi _i^\alpha `$, is a local minimum of this energy. Such an idea is realized by taking the following Hebbian learning rule ;

$`J_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}}\xi _i^\alpha \xi _j^\alpha .`$ (1.3)
If we start from a pattern of $`S_i(0)`$, then one of the memorized patterns that locates nearest to $`S_i(0)`$, say $`\xi _i^\alpha `$, is obtained gradually via the rule (1.1), $`S_i(t)=\xi _i^\alpha `$ in a certain time. This certainly offers us a possible mechanism of associative memory.

How about processes of learning patterns? The Hopfield model itself is incapable for this purpose, since the memorized patterns are stored in the fixed parameters $`J_{ij}`$ as (1.3) from the beginning. We need some generalization so that these $`J_{ij}`$ change as time goes by, i.e., plasticity of $`J_{ij}`$. A simple example of the time dependence of $`J_{ij}`$ is the following;

$`J_{ij}(t+ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{ij}(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\xi _i^\alpha \xi _j^\alpha .`$ (1.4)
It reflects the Hebbian rule (1.3), describing the process that the pattern $`S_i=\xi _i^\alpha `$ is learned in the period $`(t,t+ϵ)`$.

A well-known model of learning is a perceptron or its improvement, the error back-propagation model. In a perceptron, one assigns a pattern $`S_i=\xi _i`$ for neurons $`S_i`$ in the input layer and optimizes the weight $`w_i`$ connecting $`S_i`$ and the single output neuron $`S^{}`$ so that $`S^{}\theta (_iw_iS_i)`$ produces 1(0) for $`S_i=\xi _i(S_i\xi _i)`$ approximately. The model proves itself very useful for the problems of pattern recognition. However, in a perceptron, (i) the flow of informations is one way from the input layer to the output neuron, and (ii) the time evolution of $`S_i(t)`$ is missing, although the process of optimization of $`w_i`$ itself may be regarded as a time evolution of $`J_{ij}`$. These two points seem quite different from what is going on in our brains.

In a set of models of self-organization, signals from the neurons $`S_j`$ in the input layer are forwarded with the weights $`w_{ij}`$ to the neurons $`S_i^{}`$ in the output layer, and $`w_{ij}(t)`$ are assumed to evolve with the rule like $`w_{ij}(t+ϵ)w_{ij}(t)=\alpha w_{ij}+\beta S_i^{}S_j`$, i.e., with the damping effect and the Hebbian rule (and/or certain constraints on $`w_{ij}`$). It is shown that the neurons in the output layer are partitioned into subsets, and the neurons in each subset become active for a particular pattern in the input layer. This may explain the emergence of so-called column structures of active neurons observed in human brains like ocular dominance columns, orientation columns, and direction columns in the medial temporal area. However, these models also share the properties (i) and (ii) above.

As a stochastic model of learning, Boltzmann machines are well known. Here $`S_i`$ develops according to Boltzmann distribution for the energy (r̂efhopfieldenergy) and the learning rule is like $`w_{ij}(t+ϵ)w_{ij}(t)=\beta (S_iS_j_\xi S_iS_j_E)`$, where the first term in R.H.S. is an average over patterns to learn and describes the Hebbian rule whereas the second term is an average over Bolotzmann distribution and describes so-called unlearning processes.

Following these pioneering works, various models of learning have appeared. Some models treat both $`S_i(=\pm 1)`$ and $`J_{ij}[(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})]`$ as dynamical variables. Although they contain certain interesting features, it seems necessary to consider some natural and explicit principles that characterize the dynamics of $`S_i`$ and $`J_{ij}`$.

In Ref., a gauge model of neural network is proposed. Here $`J_{ij}`$ are regarded as gauge variables, i.e., path-dependent phase factors (exponentiated gauge field) and the energy of the model is obtained by adding a couple of additional gauge-invariant terms to the Hopfield energy (1.2). Both $`S_i`$ and $`J_{ij}`$ are treated as dynamical variables and their time-dependences at finite “temperature” ($`T`$) are postulated to obey a stochastic process for Boltzmann distribution of the gauge-invariant energy. The model on a 3D lattice at finite $`T`$ resembles the lattice gauge theory in high-energy particle physics. The phase structure of lattice gauge theory was intensively examined by mean field theory (MFT) and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Generally, three phases, Higgs phase, Coulomb phase, and confinement phase, are known to be possible \[see the table (LABEL:tab:phases) below\]. In the gauge model of neural network, the former two correspond to the ferromagnetic phase ($`J_{ij}0,S_i0`$ in MFT) and the paramagnetic phase ($`J_{ij}0,S_i=0`$) in the Hopfield model, respectively. The third confinement phase has $`J_{ij}=0`$ and $`S_i=0`$, describing the state that both learning and recalling are disable. For example, the Higgs phase corresponds to a smart student who took a lesson and made a good score in examination; the Coulomb phase to a student who took a lesson but with a bad score; the confinement phase to a student who cuts a class.

There is a quite interesting relation between the present gauge model and the quantum memory of a toric code studied by Kitaev et al.. To calculate the accuracy threshold of a 2D toric quantum memory, one needs to study the phase diagram of the 3D pure Z(2) lattice gauge theory with random gauge coupling. The present model at $`c_1=c_3=0`$ (see Sect.IIIA) coincides this gauge model at vanishing randomness. The error-free condition in uploading data to and downloading from a quantum memory leads us that this pure Z(2) gauge model should be in the ordered (Coulomb) phase. Thus the ability of leaning patterns in the gauged neural network corresponds to the error-free function of a quantum memory of a toric code.

In this paper, we study various aspects of this Z(2) gauged neural network in detail. We investigate the full phase structure of the system at finite $`T`$. We also simulate the dynamical processes of learning a pattern of $`S_i`$ and recalling it, and examine the parameter dependence of the rate of performance.

Here we note that Thoulouse noticed Z(2) gauge symmetry in the related models, the models of spin glasses, and adopted it to characterize effects of frustration. In fact, the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model of spin glasses has the same form of energy as that of the Hopfield model (1.2). Since then, there have appeared various studies on frustrations in spin glasses. The crucial difference between the models of spin glasses and the present model of neural network is in that the “gauge variables” $`J_{ij}`$ are regarded as quenched random variables in the spin-glass theory whereas they are treated in the present neural network as dynamical variables on an equal footing to the dynamical neuron variables $`S_i`$.

The structure of the paper is as follows; In Sect.II, we explain the origin and the relevance of Z(2) gauge symmetry in neural networks in details. In Sect.III, we introduce the Z(2) gauge model on a 3D lattice. In Sect.IV, we study its phase structure at finite $`T`$ by statistical mechanics and find emergent column-layer structures. In Sect.V, we simulate dynamical processes of learning a pattern and recalling it. In Sect.VI, we present discussion and the problems in future.

## II Z(2) Gauge Symmetry

In this section, we explain the origin of the gauge symmetry and its relevance to neural networks.

Let us start with the Hopfield model (1.2). Here one may assign $`S_i=1`$ for the excited (fired) state of the $`i`$-th neuron and $`S_i=1`$ for the unexcited state. Let us focus on the part of network consisting of the $`j`$-th neuron and the axon and synaptic connection starting from the $`j`$-th neuron and ending at the $`i`$-th neuron, and consider the following two states (a) and (b) of this part;

$`\mathrm{state}(\mathrm{a}):`$ $`(S_j,J_{ij}),`$ (2.1)
$`\mathrm{state}(\mathrm{b}):`$ $`(S_j^{}=S_j,J_{ij}^{}=J_{ij}).`$ (2.2)
Physically, they are independent(different) each other. For example, (a)$`(S_j=1,J_{ij}=J>0)`$ describes the excited neuron and the enhancing connection, while (b)$`(S_j=1,J_{ij}=J<0)`$ describes the unexcited neuron and the suppressing (inhibitory) connection. In the Hopfield model, these two states (a) and (b) are degenerate; they have the same amount of energy (1.2). Actually, the energy $`E_{ij}`$ stored in the above part is

$`E_{ij}(b)`$ $``$ $`S_iJ_{ij}^{}S_j^{}=S_i(J_{ij})(S_j)`$ (2.3)
$`=`$ $`S_iJ_{ij}S_j=E_{ij}(a).`$ (2.4)
The state (b) is obtained from (a) by the following replacement of $`S_j`$ and $`J_{ij}`$;

$`S_j`$ $``$ $`S_j^{}V_jS_j,J_{ij}J_{ij}^{}J_{ij}V_j,V_j=1.`$ (2.5)
In lattice gauge theory, the replacement (2.5) is known as a local Z(2) gauge transformation in which $`J_{ij}`$ plays the role of a so-called gauge variable. More generally, one may consider the following general local (site-dependent) Z(2) gauge transformation throughout the network (for all $`i`$ and $`j`$);

$`S_i`$ $``$ $`S_i^{}V_iS_i,J_{ij}J_{ij}^{}V_iJ_{ij}V_j,V_i=\pm 1.`$ (2.6)
Here, whether one replaces the state (a) by (b) ($`V_i=1`$) or not ($`V_i=1`$) may depend site by site. It is easy to see that the Hopfield energy (1.2) is invariant under this transformation.

We regard this “gauge symmetry” of the Hopfield model as an important property that the generalized model of learning should inherit. To generalize the Hopfield model to such a gauge model of learning, we just need (i) to convert $`J_{ij}`$ from constants to dynamical (gauge) variables, which are to transform as (2.6), and (ii) to introduce a gauge-invariant energy.

In Fig.1 we illustrate the function of the gauge field $`A_\mu (x)`$ in the conventional U(1) gauge field theory by using the path-dependent phase factor,

$`U(x,y)\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle _{P_{xy}}}𝑑x_\mu ^{}A_\mu (x^{})\right),`$ (2.7)
where $`P_{xy}`$ is a certain path connecting two spatial points $`y`$ and $`x`$. It conveys informations about the relative orientation of two internal coordinates at $`x`$ and $`y`$, and parallel-translates a vector $`\phi (y)`$ at $`y`$ to $`x`$ along a path from $`y`$ to $`x`$, giving rise to a vector $`U(x,y)\phi (y)`$ at $`x`$.

Since the strength $`J_{ij}`$ of the synaptic connection describes the way how the electric signal at $`j`$ is transformed to $`i`$, it is natural also from this gauge-theoretical point of view to identify $`J_{ij}`$ as $`U(x,y)`$ in gauge theory. Then the resulting signal conveyed from $`j`$ to $`i`$, $`J_{ij}S_j`$, corresponds to $`U(x,y)\phi (y)`$.

Let us explain the relation between the gauge symmetry and the physical states in detail. One may first think that the assignment of the gauge-variant variable $`S_i=\pm 1`$ to the the physical (excited and unexcited) states is inappropriate, because a gauge transformation $`S_i^{}=S_i`$ exchanges the excited state and the unexcited state. However, such an assignment brings no difficulties because $`J_{ij}`$ also changes. Let us start with the global frame of $`S_i`$ illustrated in Fig.2a, where $`S_i=1(1)`$ describe the excited(unexcited) state of the $`i`$-th neuron for all $`i`$. Suppose that we make a local gauge transformation with $`V_i=12\delta _{ij}`$, which implies that $`S_j^{}=1(1)`$ describes the unexcited(excited) state. See Fig.2b. Such a capricious or perverse choice is “corrected” or “compensated” by the associated transformation $`J_{ij}^{}=J_{ij}`$, thus bringing no changes in physical content. Actually, the state at $`j`$ is to be recognized at the neighboring observer at $`i`$ by the combination $`J_{ij}S_j`$. There holds the equality $`J_{ij}S_j=J_{ij}^{}S_j^{}`$, which shows that the physical state at $`j`$ does not change.

From these considerations, we regard $`J_{ij}`$ as the path-dependent phase factors of the gauge group Z(2), hence they take Z(2) variables,

$`J_{ij}=\pm 1Z(2)`$ (2.8)
in appropriate unit (which is to be supplied through the coefficients in the energy). One may claim that $`J_{ij}`$ should take continuous real values $`\mathrm{}<J_{ij}<\mathrm{}`$ instead of Z(2) variables. Such an assignment is certainly possible in constructing a gauge model, as long as $`J_{ij}`$ transform as (2.6). However, there should be certain constraints on $`J_{ij}`$, which reflect, e.g., conservation laws of chemical materials and restrict their possible values. On this point, study of the biological models of self-organization  is suggestive and can be taken as a support to our simplification (2.8). For example, von der Malsburg puts the constraint $`_jJ_{ij}=1`$ for each $`i`$, while Tanaka et al. argue that the values of $`J_{ij}`$ can be well approximated by the Potts spin variables; $`J_{ij}=0\mathrm{or}1,_jJ_{ij}=1`$. While both authors focus on the enhancing connections $`(J_{ij}>0)`$, Linsker considers also the case of suppressing connections $`(J_{ij}<0)`$ and puts the constraints $`1<J_{ij}<1`$. Our treatment (2.8) may be viewed (i) as the special case of Linsker’s treatment that most configurations are to reach the end points of his inequality, and/or (ii) as a generalization of Tanaka’s result to the Z(2) gauge theory in which both $`J_{ij}>0`$ and $`J_{ij}<0`$ should appear as (2.6) indicates.

Concerning to the signature of $`J_{ij}`$. it was once thought that each neuron releases only one type of neurotransmitter (Dale’s law), which implies that the signature of $`J_{ij}`$ should be fixed for each $`j`$. However, there is now evidence that Dale’s law does not hold, indicating neurons release more than one kind of neurotransmitter. Irrespective of experimental circumstances including this case, we have a sound reason to consider $`J_{ij}`$ with indefinite signature. It is supplied by regarding the gauge model under consideration as an effective model of renormalization-group theory as explained in Sect.IIIA for the explicit lattice model. Each $`S_i`$ is associated there not with a single neuron but with a cluster of neurons, expressing the “average” over the states of neurons contained in each cluster. $`J_{ij}`$ is also the average strength between two clusters, so its signature is to be indefinite.

As stated before, the Z(2) gauge symmetry requires that the energy $`E(\{S_i\},\{J_{ij}\})`$ of the system is gauge-invariant;

$`S_i(=\pm 1)`$ $``$ $`S_i^{}V_iS_i,`$ (2.9)
$`J_{ij}(=\pm 1)`$ $``$ $`J_{ij}^{}V_iJ_{ij}V_j,V_i=\pm 1,`$ (2.10)
$`E(\{S_i^{}\},\{J_{ij}^{}\})`$ $`=`$ $`E(\{S_i\},\{J_{ij}\}).`$ (2.11)
The principle of gauge symmetry puts severe restrictions on the form of $`E`$. Some possible gauge-invariant terms are depicted in Fig.3. The first term $`S_iJ_{ij}S_j`$ in Fig.3 is just the term of the Hopfield model. The second term $`S_iJ_{ik}J_{kj}S_j`$ may be viewed to describe the combined effect of the two successive processes $`S_kJ_{kj}S_j`$ and $`S_iJ_{ik}S_k`$. Actually, due to $`S_k^2=1`$, we have

$`S_iJ_{ik}S_k\times S_kJ_{kj}S_j=S_iJ_{ik}J_{kj}S_j.`$ (2.12)
In the same way, the last two terms are interpreted as

$`J_{ij}J_{ji}`$ $`=`$ $`S_iJ_{ij}S_j\times S_jJ_{ji}S_i,`$ (2.13)
$`J_{ij}J_{jk}J_{ki}`$ $`=`$ $`S_iJ_{ij}S_j\times S_jJ_{jk}S_k\times S_kJ_{ki}S_i.`$ (2.14)
These two terms describe the combined processes taking place along closed circuits. Hebb has once introduced the concept of so called reverberating circuits, in which short-term memories are considered to be stored. These terms (2.14) may describe functions of such circuits.

## III Model

### A Z(2) gauge theory on a 3D lattice

To be explicit, let us formulate the gauge model on a 3D cubic lattice. Then the system resembles to the lattice gauge theory introduced by Wilson, and known ample techniques are applicable to study it. We specify each site by the site-index $`x`$ and use $`\mu =1,2,3`$ as the direction index. We use $`\mu `$ also as the unit vector in the $`\mu `$-th direction. We set the lattice spacing $`a=1`$ for simplicity. For each $`x`$ we put a Z(2) spin variable,

$`S_x=\pm 1,`$ (3.1)
as $`S_i`$ with $`ix`$, and for each link $`(x\mu )(x,x+\mu )`$, i.e., for nearest-neighbor (NN) pair of sites, we put another Z(2) variable,

$`J_{x\mu }=\pm 1,`$ (3.2)
as $`J_{ij}`$ with $`xj,x+\mu i`$. Below we consider the symmetric connections, i.e., $`J_{ij}=J_{ji}`$, so $`J_{x\mu }`$ describes also the conductivity of signals propagating in the opposite direction from $`x+\mu `$ to $`x`$. $`J_{x\mu }`$ is the path-dependent phase factor of gauge theory as discussed in the previous section. The local Z(2) gauge transformation is given by

$`S_x`$ $``$ $`S_x^{^{}}V_xS_x,`$ (3.3)
$`J_{x\mu }`$ $``$ $`J_{x\mu }^{^{}}V_{x+\mu }J_{x\mu }V_x,`$ (3.4)
$`V_x`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 1.`$ (3.5)
As the energy $`E`$ of the system, we propose

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`c_1{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}S_{x+\mu }J_{x\mu }S_x`$ (3.9)
$`c_2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu >\nu }{}}J_{x\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu }`$
$`c_3{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu (\mu )}{}}(S_xJ_{x\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu }`$
$`+S_xJ_{x\nu ,\nu }J_{x\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu +\mu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu }).`$
Each term in (3.9) is depicted in Fig.4. The term $`c_1`$, which corresponds to the energy of the Hopfield model, describes the direct transfer of signals from $`x`$ to $`x+\mu `$. The term $`c_2`$ describes the self-energy of transfer of signal through the contour $`(xx+\mu x+\mu +\nu x+\nu x)`$ and the contour with the opposite direction as a reverberating circuit (2.14). The term $`c_3`$ describes indirect transfers of signal from $`x`$ to $`x+\mu `$ via the bypath, $`(xx+\nu x+\nu +\mu x`$) as explained in(2.12). Each term of $`E`$ is gauge invariant, so

$`E(\{S_x^{^{}}\},\{J_{x\mu }^{^{}}\})`$ $`=`$ $`E(\{S_x\},\{J_{x\mu }\}).`$ (3.10)
Appearance of the reverberating $`c_2`$ and indirect $`c_3`$ terms is also supported by the renormalization theory of critical phenomena. After a renormalization-group transformation to coarse-grain the system in the space and/or time scales by integrating out the short-wave-length/high-frequency modes of variables, every term in the energy of the resulting effective theory acquires corrections due to the integrated variables. These renormalization-group transformations also generate terms that are not contained in the original energy. In our case, if one starts with only the $`c_1`$-term, the $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ terms, among other terms, are certainly generated as these effective interaction terms. We note that these effective terms are necessarily Z(2) gauge-invariant reflecting the gauge symmetry of the $`c_1`$ term. This supports our postulate that the generalized model should respect the local Z(2) gauge symmetry that has been revealed in the Hopfield model.

As stated in Sect.I, the present system is similar to the Z(2) lattice gauge theory. There, $`S_x`$ is interpreted as a Higgs (matter) field and $`J_{x\mu }`$ is the exponentiated gauge field, $`J_{x\mu }=\mathrm{exp}(iA_{x\mu })`$. Its standard energy (action) is given by the first two ($`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$) terms; the $`c_1`$ term represents the kinetic energy of Higgs particles interacting with the gauge field $`A_{x\mu }`$, while the $`c_2`$ term represents the energy of the gauge field. Actually, in the electromagnetic $`U(1)`$ gauge theory, this $`c_2`$ term represents the energy density $`\stackrel{}{E}^2+\stackrel{}{B}^2`$ of the electromagnetic field. The values of these coefficients $`c_i`$ are related in principle with the energy of the original model that is defined at the microscopic level. This microscopic model is, however, not easy to specify, so we regard these $`c_i`$ as effective parameters in a phenomenological point of view or in the sense of renormalization-group in the following discussion. This set of parameters may differ individually, characterizing each neural network, i.e., each brain.

### B Time evolution

Let us consider the dynamics of $`S_x(t)`$ and $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$. We postulate that the energy $`E`$ basically decreases as the time increases, which sounds natural since our brain is a dissipative system (as long as $`E`$ is regarded as the physical energy). This rule of energy decrease may fail with some rates due to misfunctions of signal processing caused by noises, etc., and may be controlled by a parameter which we call “temperature” $`T(0,\mathrm{})`$; For higher(lower) $`T`$, failures occur more(less). This $`T`$ should not be confused with the physical temperature of brain, although there may be some correlations among them.

For a system of continuous variables, these postulates are implemented in Langevin equations of time evolution. For discrete Z(2) variables like $`S_x,J_{x\mu }`$, we propose to use the Metropolis algorithm (MA)  as the rule of time evolutions. In fact, MA was adopted to study the dynamics of the Hopfield model in the name of Boltzmann machine. MA is a standard algorithm to calculate the thermal averages $`O`$ over Boltzmann distribution with the energy $`E`$,

$`O(S,J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{S,J}{}}O(S,J)\mathrm{exp}(\beta E(S,J)),\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}},`$ (3.11)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{S,J}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E(S,J)).`$ (3.12)
By starting with a certain initial state $`\{S_x(0),`$$`J_{x\mu }(0)\}`$, MA determines $`\{S_x(\mathrm{}+1),`$$`J_{x\mu }(\mathrm{}+1)\}`$ from $`\{S_x(\mathrm{}),`$$`J_{x\mu }(\mathrm{})\}`$ by a certain probabilistic rule, and generates a Markov(stochastic) process,

$`\{S_x(0),J_{x\mu }(0)\},\{S_x(1),J_{x\mu }(1)\},\{S_x(2),J_{x\mu }(2)\},\mathrm{}`$ (3.13)
(3.14)
In Fig.5, we present a flow chart of the MA for a system of Z(2) variables $`S`$. Then it is assured that the following relation holds;

$`O(S,J)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{M}{}}}O(\{S_x(\mathrm{}),J_{x\mu }(\mathrm{})\}).`$ (3.15)
We regard the Markov process (3.14) just as the time evolutions of $`S_x(t)`$ and $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$ from $`t`$ to $`t+ϵ`$ ($`ϵ`$ is a certain time interval) with the relation $`t=ϵ\mathrm{}`$. Then the relation (3.15) means that our time evolution converges at large time to the equilibrium distribution given by (3.12). The time interval $`ϵ`$ is related with the MA parameters $`\alpha _S,\alpha _J`$ (written as $`\alpha `$ in Fig.5), which control the rates of changes from $`S_x(\mathrm{})`$ to $`S_x(\mathrm{}+1)`$ and from $`J_{x\mu }(\mathrm{})`$ to $`J_{x\mu }(\mathrm{}+1)`$, respectively; $`\alpha 1(0)`$ implies slow(fast) changes.

As Fig.5 shows, $`S_x(t+ϵ)`$ and $`J_{x\mu }(t+ϵ)`$ are determined by the energy difference like $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E(S_x(t))E(S_x(t))E/S_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E(J_{x\mu }(t))E(J_{x\mu }(t))E/J_{x\mu }`$. These partial derivatives are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{S_x}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left(S_{x+\mu }J_{x\mu }+S_{x\mu }J_{x\mu ,\mu }\right)`$ (3.16)
$``$ $`c_3{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu (\mu )}{}}(J_{x\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu }`$ (3.17)
$`+`$ $`J_{x\nu ,\nu }J_{x\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu +\mu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu }`$ (3.18)
$`+`$ $`S_{x\mu }J_{x\mu ,\nu }J_{x+\nu \mu ,\mu }J_{x\nu }`$ (3.19)
$`+`$ $`S_{x\mu }J_{x\nu \mu ,\nu }J_{x\nu \mu ,\mu }J_{x\nu ,\nu }),`$ (3.20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{J_{x\mu }}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1S_{x+\mu }S_x`$ (3.21)
$``$ $`c_2{\displaystyle \underset{\nu (\mu )}{}}\left(J_{x+\mu ,\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu }+J_{x\nu +\mu ,\nu }J_{x\mu }J_{x\nu ,\nu }\right)`$ (3.22)
$``$ $`c_3{\displaystyle \underset{\nu (\mu )}{}}(S_{x\nu }J_{x\nu ,\nu }J_{x+\mu \nu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu \nu }`$ (3.23)
$`+`$ $`S_{x+\nu }J_{x\nu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu +\nu }+S_xJ_{x+\mu ,\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }S_{x+\nu }`$ (3.24)
$`+`$ $`S_xJ_{x+\mu \nu ,\nu }J_{x\nu ,\mu }S_{x\nu }+S_{x+\nu +\mu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu }S_{x+\mu }`$ (3.25)
$`+`$ $`S_{x\nu +\mu }J_{x\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu ,\nu }S_{x+\mu }).`$ (3.26)
From these expressions, we observe a couple of merits of the gauge-invariant energy;

(i) The time evolution of $`S_x`$ is affected only through the terms containing $`J_{x\mu }`$ and $`J_{x\mu ,\mu }`$ that have contacts with $`S_x`$ by inspecting $`E/S_x`$ Likewise, the evolution of $`J_{x\mu }`$ is driven by the terms that have contact points $`x`$ and $`x+\mu `$ as one inspects $`E/J_{x\mu }`$. The gauge symmetry assures us that the time evolutions take place through local interactions. As stated in Sect.II, this is a welcome property.

(ii) The first term in the right-hand-side of the second equation of (3.26) expresses just the Hebbian rule (1.3) to learn the present pattern $`S_x`$ for $`c_1>0`$. The remaining terms in the right-hand-side describe the indirect effects by neighboring $`S_x`$ and $`J_{x\mu }`$, which generalize the Hebbian rule.

The typical time scales of variations in $`S_x(t)`$ and $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$ may be different in general. Actually, it is widely accepted that, in the actual processes occurring in human brain, the changes in $`J_{ij}`$ is much slower than those of $`S_i`$. One may take it into account by controlling the characteristic time scales of these two sets of variables by assigning different values for the parameters as $`\alpha _S<\alpha _J`$. We come back to this point in Sect.V.

## IV Phase Structure

In this section, we study the phase structure of the system with the energy (3.9) at finite $`T`$ by using MA (3.14). In Sect.IVA, we formulate the MFT and present the resulting phase diagram together with the results of MC simulations. Some special cases of the model are also discussed. In Sect.IVB, we explain the details of MC simulations with MA. In Sect.IVC, we study the column-layer structure for $`c_2<0`$.

### A Mean field theory and the phase diagrams

The MFT may be formulated as a variational method for the Helmholtz free energy $`F`$;

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_x=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{J_{x\mu }=\pm 1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E)\mathrm{exp}(\beta F).`$ (4.1)
Actually, for a trial energy $`E_0`$ there holds the following relations;

$`Z_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_x=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{J_{x\mu }=\pm 1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_0)\mathrm{exp}(\beta F_0),`$ (4.2)
$`O_0`$ $``$ $`Z_0^1{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{S_x=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{J_{x\mu }=\pm 1}{}}O\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_0),`$ (4.3)
$`F`$ $``$ $`F_vF_0+EE_0_0.`$ (4.4)
From this Jensen-Peierls inequality $`FF_v`$, we adjust the variational parameters contained in $`E_0`$ optimally so that $`F_v`$ is minimized.

For $`E_0`$ of the present system, we assume the translational invariance and consider the following sum of single-site and single-link energies;

$`E_0=W{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}J_{x\mu }h{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}S_x,`$ (4.5)
where $`W`$ and $`h`$ are real variational parameters. Then we calculate the variational free energy per site, $`f_vF_v/N`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of lattice sites (we present the formulae for $`d`$-dimensional lattice) as

$`f_v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{cosh}\beta W){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{cosh}\beta h)c_1dm^2M`$ (4.7)
$`c_2{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2}}M^44c_3{\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2}}m^2M^3+dWM+hm,`$
$`m`$ $``$ $`S_x_0=\mathrm{tanh}\beta h,`$ (4.8)
$`M`$ $``$ $`V_{x\mu }_0=\mathrm{tanh}\beta W.`$ (4.9)
The stationary conditions $`f_v/W=f_v/h=0`$ read

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`c_1m^2+2c_2(d1)M^3+6c_3(d1)m^2M^2,`$ (4.10)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`2dc_1mM+4c_3d(d1)mM^3,`$ (4.11)
which give rise to the equations for $`m`$ and $`M`$;

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}\left[2\beta dc_1mM+4\beta c_3d(d1)mM^3\right],`$ (4.12)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}[\beta c_1m^2+2c_2\beta (d1)M^3`$ (4.14)
$`+6\beta c_3(d1)m^2M^2].`$
By assuming suitable scaling behavior of parameters $`\beta c_i`$ at large $`d`$, the result of MFT is known to become exact for $`d\mathrm{}`$.

The MFT equations (4.9-4.14) generate the three phases characterized as follows;

| phase | $`J_{x\mu }_0`$ | $`S_x_0`$ | ability | Hopfield |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Higgs | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | learn and recall | ferromagnetic |
| Coulomb | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | learn | paramagnetic |
| Confinement | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | N.A. | N.A. |

In the first column of (LABEL:tab:phases), the name of each phase is given, which is used in particle physics. The second and third columns show the order parameters of MFT, $`J_{x\mu }_0(=M),S_x_0(=m)`$. The fourth column shows the properties of each phase. The condition $`M0`$ is a necessary condition so that a phase has the ability to learn a pattern $`S_x=\xi _i^\alpha `$ by storing it to $`J_{x\mu }`$. There the fluctuations of $`J_{x\mu }`$ should be small so that $`J_{x\mu }`$ generate a nontrivial minimum of $`E`$ at $`S_x=\xi _i^\alpha `$. ($`M=0`$ means the fluctuations are too large.) The condition $`m0`$ is a necessary condition to recall the pattern $`S_x=\xi _i^\alpha `$. The fluctuations of $`S_x`$ around $`S_x=\xi _i^\alpha `$ should be small when recalling is successful. We note that the fourth phase with $`M=0`$ and $`m0`$ is missing. This sounds natural since learning should be a necessary condition for recalling, hence partly supporting the gauge symmetry of neural network. The fifth column indicates the corresponding phases in the Hopfield model.

In Fig.6 we plot the phase diagrams obtained from (4.9-4.14) for various values of $`c_3`$. (The case of $`c_3=0`$ has been studied in Ref..) The results of MC simulation in the next subsection are also presented by filled circles. The phase boundary of MFT between the Higgs phase and the Coulomb phase is second order, while other two boundaries, Higgs-confinement and confinement-Coulomb, are first order. In Fig.7 we present typical behaviors of $`f_v`$ for (a): second-order transition; (b) first-order transition. Across a second-order transition, $`M`$ and $`m`$ vary continuously, while across a first-order transition, $`M`$ and/or $`m`$ change discontinuously with finite jumps $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. For a Higgs-confinement transition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m0`$, and for a confinement-Coulomb transition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0`$ since $`m=0`$ in both phases.

The locations of phase boundaries of MFT agree globally with those of MC simulation in Sect.IVB. However, the results of MFT are not sufficient in the following two points;

(i) The MC simulation shows that the confinement-Coulomb transitions are second-order contrary to the MFT. This point may be explained as $`d=3`$ is not large enough for MFT. The MC simulation for $`d=4`$  for $`c_3=0`$ reports first-order confinement-Coulomb transitions as the MFT does.

(ii) The MC simulation shows that the Higgs-confinement boundary terminates at a certain end point. Along this phase boundary, the jumps $`\mathrm{\Delta }M,\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ decrease as $`c_2`$ decreases and disappear at the end point at $`c_2>0`$. This corresponds to the complementarity studied in Ref. for $`c_3=0`$, which states that these two phases are analytically connected through a detour.

There are the following special cases that are examined better by other methods;

CASE I: Ising model $`(c_2\mathrm{})`$

Here the $`c_2`$ terms forces $`J_{x\mu }`$ to the so-called pure-gauge configuration, and the energy reduces to that of the Ising model;

$`J_{x\mu }`$ $``$ $`V_{x+\mu }V_x,`$ (4.16)
$`E`$ $``$ $`(c_1+4c_3){\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}S_{x+\mu }^{}S_x^{}+\mathrm{const}.,`$ (4.17)
$`S_x^{}`$ $``$ $`V_xS_x=\pm 1.`$ (4.18)
Thus, there is a second-order Ising transition at $`\beta (c_1+4c_3)0.22`$ for $`c_2=\mathrm{}`$.

CASE II: Pure gauge model $`(c_1=c_3=0)`$

Here the energy is

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`c_2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu >\nu }{}}J_{x\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x\nu }+\mathrm{const}.`$ (4.19)
This system is known  to exhibit a second-order transition at $`\beta c_20.76`$. Actually, after the duality transformation, the system (4.19) is converted to the 3D Ising spin model.

CASE III: Single-link model $`(c_2=c_3=0)`$

Here the sum over $`J_{x\mu }`$ is possible because the energy is decoupled to each link, and the partition function becomes an $`S_x`$-independent constant;

$`{\displaystyle \underset{J_{x\mu }=\pm 1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta c_1S_xJ_{x\mu }S_{x+\mu })`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta c_1S_xS_{x+\mu })`$ (4.20)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta c_1),`$ (4.21)
due to $`S_x^2=1`$. Thus the free energy has no singularities and no phase transitions along the $`c_1`$-line. This explains why the Higgs-confinement transition line should truncate at the end point (before reaching the $`c_1`$-line) as the complementarity claims.

CASE IV: Self-duality curve $`(c_3=0)`$

For $`c_3=0`$, the standard Z(2) duality transformation can be applied, which maps the model at $`P(\beta c_1,\beta c_2)`$ onto the same model at $`P^{}(\beta c_1^{},\beta c_2^{})`$ with

$`\beta c_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{nth}(\beta c_2),\beta c_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{nth}(\beta c_1).`$ (4.22)
If we assume the phase transition occurs at the point satisfying $`P^{}=P`$, we obtain the curve of phase transition from (4.22) as

$`\beta c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{nth}(\beta c_1).`$ (4.23)
In the next subsection, we shall see that a part  of the curve (4.23) is actually the phase boundary.

### B MC simulation

We performed MC simulations for a 3D lattice of the size $`N=L^3`$ up to $`L=16`$ with the periodic boundary condition. The case of $`c_1=c_3=0`$ has been examined by Bahnot and Creutz.. We employed MA, which is illustrated in Fig.5, with choosing the prefactors $`\alpha _S=\alpha _J=0.9`$. Typical numbers of sweeps \[$`M`$ of (3.14)\] are $`10^5`$ for thermalization and $`5\times 10^4`$ for measurements.

Among others, we measured the internal energy $`U`$ and the specific heat $`C`$,

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`E,`$ (4.24)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dT}}=\beta ^2(EE)^2.`$ (4.25)
We judge the order of transition as follows; If $`U`$ has a discontinuity at the transition point, it is of first order. A typical behavior of $`U`$ and $`C`$ for a first-order transition is given in Fig.8a and Fig.8b. If $`U`$ is continuous and $`C`$ has a peak and discontinuity, then it is of second order. A typical behavior of $`U`$ and $`C`$ for a second-order transition is given in Fig.9a and Fig.9b.

Let us comment on the gauge fixing. Our MC simulations have been done without fixing the gauge. We have also made MC simulations in the unitary gauge,

$`S_x=1.`$ (4.26)
Although the partition function in (4.1) and the corresponding averages are independent whether one fixes the gauge or not, variations of the variables in Markov processes in the unitary gauge are too small and the convergence of the expectation values are too slow to obtain meaningful results with good accuracies. This slow convergence shall persist even for other gauge fixings.

### C Column-layer structures in $`c_2<0`$

Usual studies of lattice gauge theory have been restricted to the case of $`c_2>0`$. However, as a model of neural network, the case of $`c_2<0`$ is also interesting since this condition implies that the $`c_2`$-term in the energy expresses negative feed backs, that is, signals starting from $`x`$ will propagate around the plaquette and return to $`x`$ with a negative coefficient.

For $`c_2<0`$, the $`c_2`$-term prefers “flux states” of $`J_{x\mu }`$, i.e., $`J_{x\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }J_{x\mu }=1`$. Then it will generally compete with the $`c_1`$-term which prefers fluxless states, $`J_{x\nu }J_{x+\nu ,\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\nu }J_{x\mu }=1`$. Thus the system is frustrated. The MFT with the translationally-invariant variational energy of (4.5) is inadequate for this situation, and the MC simulation is necessary.

In Fig.10, we present the phase diagram of MC simulation for the extended region with $`c_2<0`$ and/or $`c_1<0`$. In the region $`c_2<0`$, there are phase boundaries that look like mirror images of $`c_2>0`$ of Fig.6 except that the Higgs-confinement boundaries extend to $`c_1\pm \mathrm{}`$ instead of terminating at the ending critical points. The phase F in Fig.10 corresponds to the Higgs phase B, the phase E to Coulomb phase A, and the region D is connected to the confinement phase C. For $`c_3=0`$ the phase diagram is symmetric w.r.t the $`c_1=0`$-line, reflecting the symmetry under $`(c_1,c_3)(c_1,c_3)`$, i.e.,

$`Z(c_1,c_2,c_3)=Z(c_1,c_2,c_3).`$ (4.27)
Bahnot and Creutz performed MC simulations for $`c_2<0`$ at $`c_3=0`$ with the related interest of spinglass (though taking $`J_{x\mu }`$ as an annealed variable). Our result at $`c_3=0`$ is consistent with their result. At $`c_30`$, the symmetry w.r.t. the $`c_1=0`$-line is violated as shown in Fig.10b for $`\beta c_3=0.05`$.

In the “Higgs” phase F, we observe a “column-layer” structure in the spatial configurations of the following link objects;

$`j_{x\mu }S_{x+\mu }J_{x\mu }S_x.`$ (4.28)
$`j_{x\mu }`$ is the thermal average of a gauge invariant extension of $`J_{x\mu }`$ as appeared in the $`c_1`$-term of the energy. It measures the efficiency of signal propagations between $`x`$ and $`x+\mu `$. In Fig.11, we present the basic unit of a typical periodic configurations of $`j_{x\mu }`$ that forms a column-layer lattice in the phase F.

This column-layer structure on the lattice is stable, because $`j_{x\mu }`$ are not snap shots but thermal (i.e., time) averages in long MC runs. It is to be spontaneously generated as a result of dynamics, i.e., a result of self-organization in the present model. In short, its origin is the frustration (competition) between the $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ terms in the energy.

There are several possible configurations of $`j_{x\mu }`$ which differ from that of Fig.11 in the direction of 1D alignments (i.e., other than in the 1-direction) and the orientation of the planes of layers (other than in the 1-2 plane). These options are generated by starting with different initial configurations (and/or different random numbers). In this sense, their generations are spontaneous, but they are stable once they are formed as we explained.

Since a large $`j_{x\mu }`$ means that signals (potential) propagate between $`S_x`$ and $`S_{x+\mu }`$ frequently and coherently, each column in the column-layer structure is a 1D path along which signals propagate dominantly. It is interesting to study possible relevance of such a structure to the actual self-organized structures observed in the human brains like ocular dominance columns.  (See the future problems in Sect.VI.) We also note that the present structure of weakly-coupled planes may be viewed as a kind of multilayer neural network.

## V Learning and Associative Memory

In the previous section, we studied the phase structure of the model, which reflects the static properties of the model. In this section, we simulate the processes of learning a pattern of $`S_x`$ and recalling it. The results reflect the dynamical properties of the model.

We set up the simulations in the following two steps in time;

(i) Learning during $`0<t<t_1`$:

We first prepare a pattern $`S_x=\xi _x`$ to memorize and start with it, $`S_x(0)=\xi _x`$. During this learning time, we freeze $`S_x(t)`$ as

$`S_x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`S_x(0)\mathrm{for}0<t<t_1,`$ (5.1)
by hand to let the system learn it. This may correspond to apply very strong stimuli to the brain like forcing it to watch the pattern with concentration. On the other hand, we allow $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$ vary according to MA to adjust themselves to a configuration suitable for $`S_x(0)`$. In terms of the prechoice parameters $`\alpha _S,\alpha _J`$ of MA (where $`1\alpha `$ is a parameter to control the rate of time variation), we set $`\alpha _S=1`$ and $`\alpha _J<1`$ for $`0<t<t_1`$. Below we fix $`\alpha _J=0.9`$ for $`0<t<t_1`$. The time $`t`$ is defined throughout the simulations ($`0<t`$) as $`t(1\alpha _J(0<t<t_1))\times `$ number of iterations (sweeps), i.e., $`t0.1\times `$ number of iterations.

(ii) Recalling during $`t_1<t`$:

At $`t=t_1`$ we change $`S_x`$ discontinuously from $`S_x(0)`$ to a pattern $`S_x(t_1)`$ that is obtained by adding a certain amount of random noise upon $`S_x(0)`$. For definiteness, we set $`S_x(t_1)=S_x(0)`$ for the 10% of sites $`x`$ that are randomly chosen throughout the entire lattice (except for Fig.17 discussed later where we consider the cases of more amounts of noises). This forced change of $`S_x(t)`$ at $`t=t_1`$ simulates relaxing the brain from the concentration upon $`S_x(0)`$ and letting it forget $`S_x(0)`$ partly. Then we let $`S_x(t)`$ vary according to MA with $`\alpha _S<1`$. Below we fix $`\alpha _S=0.9`$ for $`t_1<t`$. On the other hand, $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$ basically vary according to MA with $`\alpha _J<1`$ smoothly starting from $`J_{x\mu }(t_1)`$. However, with the reason explained below, we shall be also interested in the special limit $`\alpha _J1`$ in which the time variations of $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$ after $`t_1`$ freeze;

$`\alpha _J1:J_{x\mu }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{x\mu }(t_1)\mathrm{for}t_1<t.`$ (5.2)
To judge the performance of each process of learning a pattern and recalling it in a quantitative manner, we use the following overlaps;

$`O_S(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}S_x(0)S_x(t),`$ (5.3)
$`O_J(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3N}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}J_{x\mu }(0)J_{x\mu }(t),`$ (5.4)
which are gauge-invariant under (3.5). If the recalling is successful, we expect $`S_x(t)S_x(0)`$ at sufficiently large $`t`$, so $`O_S1`$. (Note that $`O_S(t_1)=0.8`$ for the 10% change of $`S_x`$ at $`t=t_1`$.) On the other hand, $`O_J(t_1)`$ measures the rate how much the synaptic connections change by learning during $`0<t<t_1`$. In Fig.12, we illustrate $`O_S`$ and $`O_J`$ versus $`t`$ in two typical processes for the case (5.2). Fig.12a is a process that succeeds in recalling, and Fig.12b is one that fails in recalling.

Let us first study the dependence of the overlaps upon the choice of $`\alpha _J`$ for $`t_1<t`$. In Fig.13 we plot $`O_S(t)`$ and $`O_J(t)`$ for three cases, $`\alpha _J=1.0,0.9,0.99`$ for $`t_1<t`$. (Note that we fixed $`\alpha _J=0.9`$ for $`0<t<t_1`$.) As the initial condition, we choose $`S_x(0)`$ and $`J_{x\mu }(0)`$ randomly. We select three points in the parameter space of $`c_i`$. Fig.13a is the result for $`c_1=1,c_2=c_3=0`$ which belongs to the confinement phase. For $`\alpha _J=1`$ ($`J_{x\mu }(t)=J_{x\mu }(t_1)`$), $`O_S`$ approaches to the constants near 0.95; the system (almost) succeeds to recall $`S_x(0)`$. For $`\alpha _J=0.99`$, $`O_S`$ once increases and then decreases. It describe a process of recalling $`S_x(0)`$ partly and then lose the memory gradually, that is, the phenomenon of a partial memory loss(deficit). For $`\alpha _J=0.9`$, $`O_S`$ decreases monotonically. These latter two curves exhibit a typical phenomenon of a dynamical system with coupled variables. A fixed point obtained by fixing some variables may become unstable when all are coupled. As expected, $`O_S`$ decreases more as $`J_{x\mu }`$ change more rapidly (i.e., $`\alpha _J`$ decreases more). Fig.13b is for the point $`c_1=3.0,c_2=1.0,c_3=0`$, and Fig.13c is for the point $`c_1=3.0,c_2=1.0,c_3=0`$, both of which are in the Higgs phase. In contrast to Fig.13a, $`O_S`$ in these points have smaller dependence on $`\alpha _J`$, so the effects of memory loss are smaller than in the confinement phase. Although the time-variations of $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$ for $`t_1<t`$ ($`\alpha _J1`$) reduce the performance of recalling more (in the deconfinement phase) or less (in the Higgs phase), we stress that these phenomena of partial memory loss are not a flaw of the present model, but a welcome feature that the realistic model of human brain should possess.

Since the case of $`\alpha _J=1`$ for $`t_1<t`$ gives the stable and highest values of $`O_S`$ at large $`t`$, we present the results for $`\alpha _J(t_1<t)=1`$ in Fig.14-18 below as typical results for $`\alpha _J1`$. This choice $`\alpha _J(t_1<t)=1`$ for presentations sounds also reasonable because the actual variations of synaptic connections, $`J_{x\mu }(t)`$, in the human brain are much slower than those of $`S_x(t)`$ as explained in Sect.IIIB, i.e., $`\alpha _J1`$. (In this viewpoint, our choice $`\alpha _J=0.9`$ for $`0<t<t_1`$ corresponds to accelerate the learning processes significantly. If we take larger $`\alpha _J1`$ for $`0<t<t_1`$, then we need to take $`t_1`$ larger in order to obtain the same values of $`O_S`$.)

Next we study the dependence on the initial conditions. In Fig.14 we present the contours of $`O_S`$ at large $`t`$ for four choices (a-d) of the initial states $`S_x(0),J_{x\mu }(0)`$. The results of first three choices (a-c) look similar each other, while the fourth case (d) $`S_x(0)=1,J_{x\mu }(0)=1`$ is different; the region of higher $`O_S`$ for $`c_2>0`$ extends to the phase boundary $`(c_10.4)`$ of the Higgs phase and the Coulomb phase. This is natural since the configuration $`S_x=J_{x\mu }=1`$ is the minimum of the free energy in the Higgs phase at $`c_2>0`$. Thus the system has learned this pattern $`S_x(0)=1`$ from the beginning. Below we present the result for the random initial condition, the choice (a), i.e., $`S_x(0)`$ and $`J_{x\mu }(0)`$ are chosen randomly from $`\pm 1`$.

To study the dependence on the learning time $`t_1`$, we present in Fig.15 two typical processes with different $`t_1`$. In Fig.15a, $`t_1=1`$ and $`O_S`$ approaches to $`O_S=0.6`$, so it fails to recall $`S_x(0)`$. On the other hand, in Fig.15b, $`t_1=5`$ and $`O_S`$ approaches to $`O_S=0.92`$, so we judge it succeeds (but not completely) to recall $`S_x(0)`$. A reason is clearly drawn from the behavior of $`O_J`$. In Fig.15b, $`O_J`$ almost converges to a fixed value at $`t_1`$, that is $`J_{x\mu }`$ converge to the suitable configuration, while, in Fig.15a, $`O_J`$ is in a way to converge. Thus, a necessary condition to learn successfully is to keep $`t_1`$ sufficiently long (longer than the relaxation time of $`J_{x\mu }`$) so that $`J_{x\mu }`$ can converge to the configuration that makes $`S_x=S_x(0)`$ a minimum of the energy. For definiteness we present the results for $`t_1=5`$ below.

Let us next study the relative importance of each term $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$ of the energy in learning and recalling. In Fig.16, $`O_S`$ after sufficiently large time is plotted for three cases where only one $`c_i`$ of $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$ is nonvanishing and the other two are zero. In the case of $`c_1`$ alone, as $`c_1`$ increases, $`O_S`$ approaches unity. This is expected since the $`c_1`$-term describes the direct transfers of signals. In the case of $`c_3`$ alone, as $`c_3`$ increases, $`O_S`$ increases but saturates around $`O_S0.65`$. This indicates that the indirect signal transfers by the $`c_3`$-term is not sufficient by itself to recall the original pattern, as anticipated. In the case of $`c_2`$ alone, $`O_S0`$. This is natural because the $`c_2`$-term, which contains only $`J_{x\mu }`$ and no $`S_x`$, expresses signal-transfers starting from a neuron and ending at the same neuron through a loop along a plaquette, but describes no signal-transfers to the NN neurons.

Let us see the roles of $`c_2,c_3`$-terms in details. Since we have observed that the $`c_1`$-term plays the central role in learning and recalling, we simulate the processes with $`c_1+c_2`$ and $`c_1+c_3`$. In Fig.17 we plot $`O_S`$ after large time for several $`S_x(t_1)`$’s prepared by adding certain amounts of noises to $`S_x(0)`$ from 10% up to 40%. It shows that adding certain amounts of $`c_2`$ or $`c_3`$ upon $`c_1`$ improves the rate of recalling, i.e., to achieve larger $`O_S`$. It is interesting to note that there is a preferred region for $`c_2`$, $`\beta c_2(0.2,0.6),`$ for which $`O_S`$ is over 95%. This reminds us the phenomenon that applying a certain but not too much amount of magnetic field improves our brain activities.

Let us study the relation between the results of present section and the phase structure of the previous section. In Fig.18, we superpose contour plots of $`O_S`$ on the phase diagram Fig.6b. We observe that being in the Higgs phase is not sufficient to achieve good rates of successful learning and recalling. This is clear especially in the region with large $`c_2`$, which is consistent with the case of $`c_2`$ alone in Fig.16. Also, in the region near $`\beta c_1=0.5,\beta c_2=0.4`$ which is a vague border between the confinement and the Higgs phases, learning is possible. So this region may have something to do with our experience that a tiny amount of stimulation helps us to recall certain patterns; a coexisting phenomenon of recalling and nonrecalling. Apart from these regions, there are certainly the correlations among the results of this section and the phase diagram of Sect.III.

From these results, one may list up the conditions to succeed in learning a pattern of $`S_x`$ and recalling it as follows;

\- The learning time $`t_1`$ should be larger than the relaxation time of $`J_{x\mu }`$.

\- The temperature $`T`$ should be low.

\- The self-interaction term $`\beta c_2`$ should be within a certain range ($`0.0<\beta c_2<0.7`$ for $`\beta c_1=1.0`$).

\- The indirect $`c_3`$-term should be of the same signature as the direct $`c_1`$-term to accelerate signal transfers caused by the $`c_1`$-term.

## VI Conclusions and Future Problems

By converting the strength $`J_{ij}`$ of the synaptic connection to a Z(2) gauge variable (exponentiated gauge connection) and imposing the gauge symmetry on the energy $`E(\{S_i\},\{J_{ij}\})`$, we have proposed an explicit model of neural network of learning. The Z(2) gauge symmetry is inherited from the Hopfield model. Study of the phase structure and the simulations of learning and recalling revealed several interesting features of the model.

\- In the confinement phase, both learning and recalling are disabled, which may corresponds to certain symptoms like Alzheimer’s disease \[See (LABEL:tab:phases)\]. The complementarity characterized by the end point of Higgs-confinement phase-transition curve may offer us some methods to retrieve the network from the confinement phase to the Higgs phase in a continuous and practical manner.

\- The column-layer structure of $`S_{x+\mu }J_{x\mu }S_x`$ discussed in Sect.IVC implies that there are particular 1D paths (columns) in each layer along which the signals (electric potential) propagate dominantly. This structure seems to exhibit the potentiality of the present model to evolve the self-organized column structures of the active neurons, which are observed in the human brains.

\- Due to the mutual interactions between $`S_x`$ and $`J_{x\mu }`$, the phenomena of memory loss are observed as in Fig.13.

\- The time evolution of $`J_{x\mu }`$ generalizes the Hebbian rule of learning. Suitable amounts of the newly added $`c_2,c_3`$-terms improve the performance of learning and recalling (Fig.17).

We think that these features make the present model interesting as a neural network of learning and associative memory and worth to make further investigations.

There are certainly various ways to improve the present model. Among others, we list up the following;

(1) Actual synaptic connections are not symmetric, i.e., $`J_{ij}J_{ji}`$. However, in the Hopfield model, due to the very form of its energy $`E`$ of (1.2), the antisymmetric part of $`J_{ij}`$, $`J_{ij}J_{ji}`$, does not contribute to $`E`$. This flaw can be removed in the present framework by introducing two independent Z(2) variables, $`J_{x\mu }`$ and $`J_{x+\mu ,\mu }`$, on a link $`(x,x+\mu )`$. Then the $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ terms can reflect the antisymmetric part $`J_{x\mu }J_{x+\mu ,\mu }`$. In fact, an asymmetric model in this direction is proposed in Ref. (Model III) and its phase diagram is studied in MFT.

(2) In the present model, synaptic connections are restricted only to the NN neurons. In human brain, each neuron receives signals from $`100010000`$ neurons. These long-range connections are certainly responsible to store many patterns and should be incorporated in a more realistic model. We plan to increase the number of connections in the future study. This means to introduce more variables $`J_{ij}`$ beyond NN pairs. Related to this point, one may increase the number of patterns to memorize as $`\xi _x^\alpha `$ in the Hopfield model.

(3) Natural ways to incorporate external stimuli like visual and acoustic ones to the present model may be (i) to change the boundary condition from the present periodic boundary condition to a fixed boundary condition with an appropriate values of $`S_x,J_{x\mu }`$ on the surface of the 3D lattice, and/or (ii) fixing $`S_x,J_{x\mu }`$ in certain part of the system to certain constants. By studying the response to each stimulation, one may address the question whether column structures of active neurons are generated in the present model.

Acknowledgments

We thank Yukari Fujita and Yuki Nakano for discussion. One of the authors (K.S.) thanks the members of Department of Physics, Kanazawa University for their hospitality delivered to him during his stay.

Note added

The gauge model of neural network has been extended to a quantum neural network having U(1) gauge symmetry in Y.Fujita and T.Matsui, Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing, ed. by L.Wang et al. (2002)1360-1367 (arXiv:cond-mat/0207023).


text:
# The shape of rotation curves: models vs. observations

## 1. Introduction

The shape and amplitude of the rotation curves (RCs) reflect the mass distribution of luminous and dark matter in disk galaxies. The luminous mass distribution is inferred from the observed surface brightness and gas profiles after assuming a stellar mass-to-luminosity ratio M/L. The uncertainty in the determination of the M/L ratio is reflected in the large number of RC decomposition models proposed, from maximum disk hypothesis to sub-maximum disks to minimum disks. Whether luminous or dark matter dominates can in a first approximation be inferred from the shape of the RCs. If the luminous mass contribution to the gravitational potential is dynamically important, then the shapes of the RCs are expected to differ among galaxies with different surface brightness (SB) distributions. The dark matter halo modulates these differences and in the extreme case of dark halo dominion, the shapes of the RCs will be largely independent from the SB profile.

In this paper we will present the shape and decomposition of RCs of modeled disk galaxies within cold dark matter (CDM) halos and discuss these results in the light of the observations.

## 2. The model

The disk is build up within a growing CDM halo. We use the extended Press-Schechter approach to generate the statistical mass aggregation histories (MAHs) of the halos, and a generalized secondary infall model to calculate the virialization of the accreting mass shells (Avila-Reese et al. 1998). The evolution and structure of our CDM halos agree well with results from cosmological N-body simulations. The mass shells are assumed to have aligned rotation axis and to be in solid body rotation, with specific angular momentum given by $`j_{sh}(t_v)=dJ(t_v)/dM_v(t_v)`$, where $`J=\lambda GM_v^{5/2}/\left|E\right|^{1/2}`$, $`J`$, Mv and $`E`$ are the total angular momentum, mass and energy of the halo at the shell virialization time $`t_v`$. The spin parameter, $`\lambda `$, is assumed to be constant in time. As the result of the assembling of these mass shells, a present day halo ends with an angular momentum distribution close to the universal distribution found by Bullock et al. (2001). A fraction fd of the mass of each shell is assumed to cool down and form a disk in a dynamical time. The radial mass distribution of the infalling gas is calculated by equating its specific angular momentum to that of its final circular orbit in centrifugal equilibrium (detailed angular momentum conservation is assumed). The gravitational interaction of disk and halo is calculated using the adiabatic invariant formalism. As the result of this modeling, disks with a nearly exponential surface density distribution are formed (Firmani & Avila-Reese 2000, hereafter FA00; Avila-Reese & Firmani 2002). The local star formation (SF) is triggered by the Toomre gas gravitational instability criterion and self-regulated by a vertical disk balance between the energy input due to SNe and the turbulent energy dissipation in the ISM. The SF efficiency depends on the gas surface density determined mainly by $`\lambda `$, and on the gas accretion rate determined by the cosmological MAH. Finally, we consider the formation of a secular bulge using the Toomre criterion for the stellar disk.

In this paper we use a flat model with non-vanishing vacuum energy density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=h=0.65`$) and the power spectrum normalized to COBE.

## 3. Shapes of rotation curves

Although the outer model RCs are not always flat, their shapes are smooth, showing a conspiracy between the dark and luminous matter distributions. The maximum of the RC is typically attained at 2-3 stellar scale radii, Rs. For a given mass, the outer shape of the RC correlates with the disk SB, the bulge-to-disk (b/d) ratio, and the galaxy mass fraction $`\text{f}\text{d}`$ M$`{}_{\mathrm{gal}}{}^{}/`$Mv. The MAH does not play major role in the outer RC shape but, for a given mass, it defines the amplitude of the RC (Vm) (see Fig. 4 in FA00).

$``$ We find that the higher the disk SB is, the steeper the declining shape of the RC (Fig. 1) and the larger the b/d ratio. In Fig. 2(a) we plot the outer slope of the RC, $`lgsl`$, vs the stellar central surface density for 20 models of M$`{}_{v}{}^{}=3.5\times 10^{11}\text{M}\text{}`$, fd=0.05, and the MAH and $`\lambda `$ calculated randomly from the corresponding statistical distributions (see FA00). Filled and empty symbols are for models with b/d ratios larger and smaller than 0.1, respectively. $`lgsl`$ is the logarithmic slope of the RCs at 2.2 and 5 Rs. Some observational works found similar correlations for the family of high SB galaxies (e.g., Casertano & van Gorkom 1990; Verheijen 1997, who also included low SB galaxies), and in the extreme of low SB, it is well known that low SB galaxies have typically rising RCs (de Blok & McGaugh 1997). As $`\lambda `$ is smaller, the gaseous disk is more concentrated and the stellar disk is more unstable giving rise to high SBs and large b/d ratios as well as to more peaked RCs. As seen in Fig. 1, for the range of the most probable values of $`\lambda `$ and for $`\text{f}\text{d}0.05`$ this may happen in spite of the CDM halos being cuspy. Nevertheless, for these halos, only the more concentrated disks may resemble the maximum disk solution and only very few models (low SB) present rising RCs. We will return to this question below.

$``$ In Fig. 1 one sees that as fd gets larger, the more declining is the outer RC slope. In our models the fraction of galaxy mass is a free parameter. The gas cooling efficiency within the dark halos can be a function of mass; in large halos the cooling time tends to be larger than the Hubble time in such a way that only a fraction of the original baryons could be in the $`z=0`$ galaxy. At the other extreme, very small systems may lose significant fractions of gas due to SF activity (SNe). Calculations taking into account these two processes indeed show that fd may be $`0.5`$ times the original baryon-to-dark matter fraction in the CDM halos (van den Bosch 2001). These calculations show that the final fd of the halos does not follow a particular trend with Mv; if any, smaller halos have on average smaller fd’s than larger halos. On the other hand, the original baryon-to-dark matter fraction in the halos can not be larger than the universal fraction, which for $`h=0.7`$ has a central value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.15`$. Cosmological simulations have recently shown that due to the gas heating in the shocks during the formation of filaments, only roughly one third of the baryons are trapped within collapsed galaxy halos at $`z=0`$ (Davé et al. 2001). Therefore, on the ground of all these theoretical calculations, one may expect that the galaxy-to-halo mass fraction in halos is on average $`\text{f}\text{d}0.15/(2\times 3)=0.025`$. Estimates of this fraction for our Galaxy and other galaxies indeed suggest similar values.

Modelers have commonly used values of 0.05 for fd (e.g., Mo et al. 1998; FA00). For this value, model disks with $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.025`$ ($`10\%`$ of the $`\lambda `$ distribution) have typically highly declining RCs to be realistic. Since disk component dominates strongly in these cases, the disk is dynamically unstable and probably turns into a spherical system. As fd gets smaller, the disk component becomes less dominant (Fig. 1) and, therefore, models with smaller $`\lambda `$’s can still be stable. On the other hand, for fd=0.05 low SB galaxies will be those with $`\lambda >0.055`$ ($`45\%`$ of the $`\lambda `$ distribution). The SB distribution of disk galaxies shows that more than 50% of them are probably of low SB type (de Jong & Lacey 2000). Using $`\text{f}\text{d}0.03`$, (i) the low SB galaxies are those with $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}0.035`$ (now more than 50%) and (ii) high SB models with $`\lambda 0.015`$ have still realistic RCs.

$``$ Finally, we find that the outer RC correlates slightly with mass (luminosity) in the sense that massive systems tend to have declining RCs at one optical radius for example, while for the smallest systems the RCs are slightly rising at this radius. At first glance this could seem to be in conflict with the CDM halos: the less massive halos are more concentrated than the more massive ones. However, the central surface density of the model disks increases with the mass as M$`{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{v}{}^{}`$ with $`a0.20.3`$ (see also Dalcanton et al. 1997), and as discussed above, the outer shape of the RCs correlates with the disk surface density. In Fig. 2 squares are models with the average MAHs, $`\lambda =\text{f}\text{d}=0.05`$, but with 3 different masses, M$`{}_{v}{}^{}=3.5\times (10^{10},10^{11},10^{12})\text{M}\text{}`$, from left to right, respectively. The plot shows that the mass dependence of $`lgsl`$ is mainly due to the dependence of Mv on SB. From an analysis of a large sample of late-type galaxy RCs, Persic et al. (1996) concluded that RCs follow an universal trend which depends only on luminosity, L. The RCs of our models could be more dependent on L if fd would depend on mass. We have mentioned above that for small galaxies (dwarfs), fd could be on average smaller than for massive ones; feedback is probably important for the small galaxies.

We conclude that model galaxies have different RC shapes, which correlate primarily with the disk SB (determined mainly by $`\lambda `$) and fd. A dependence on L as suggested by Persic et al. (1996) may appear but as a secondary effect, due to the dependence of the SB and fd on the mass. A more careful comparison of model and observed RCs could allow us to put some constraints on the value and dependence on mass of the unknown parameter fd.

### 3.1. Rotation curve decompositions

From Fig. 1 one sees that the halo component dominates in the RC decomposition of models with fd=0.05 and $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}0.035`$. In other words, models with SB typical for normal high SB galaxies are sub-maximal (FA00; Avila-Reese & Firmani 2002). If $`\text{f}\text{d}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.05`$, as theoretical and observational arguments hint (see above), then even for the highest SB galaxies the halo component will be dominant in the center, i.e. all the models are sub-maximum disks, the low SB ones tending to the minimum disk case. Observations suggest that HSB galaxies tend to the maximum disk case (e.g., Corsini et al. 1998; Salucci & Persic 1999; Palunas & Williams 2000). Comparison of population synthesis models with the photometric properties of HSB galaxies also point to mass-to-luminosity ratios corresponding to the maximum disk case (e.g., Bell & de Jong 2001). Theoretical arguments as the swing amplifier constraints also suggest central luminous matter dominion in HSB galaxies.

The model RC decompositions are dominated by the dark component because the CDM halos are cuspy. Observations of the RCs of dark-matter-dominated galaxies point to halo central mass distributions that are less concentrated than what CDM predicts. Recent high resolution H$`\alpha `$ (Blais-Ouellete et al. 2000; see this volume), HI (Côtè et al. 2000) and CO (Bolatto et al. 2002) RC observations for dwarf galaxies, and HI and H$`\alpha `$ RC observations for low SB galaxies (de Blok et al. 2001; Marchesini et al. 2002) show that the inner density profile of halos is much shallower than r-1. Using data for dwarf and LSB galaxies and cluster of galaxies, Firmani et al. (2001) inferred the scaling laws of the halo cores: the central density does not depend on mass, and the core radius increases roughly proportional to Vm. Using these scaling laws, we artificially smoothed the central density profiles of our CDM halos. The RC decompositions obtained for these shallow CDM halos show central dominance of the disk component over the halo for models with $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.05`$ and 0.035 when $`\text{f}\text{d}=0.05`$ and 0.03, respectively. In other words, high SB model disks are now close to the maximum disk solution (more the models with $`\text{f}\text{d}=0.05`$ than those with $`\text{f}\text{d}=0.03`$). As the SB decreases, the models are more and more dark-halo-dominated. Low SB galaxies indeed seem to be sub-maximum disks; a maximum disk solution for these galaxies demands too high M/L ratios from the stellar population point of view (de Blok et al. 2001). Also, the outer logarithmic slope of RCs of model galaxies increase on average when the soft core is introduced, in better agreement with observations (panel b in Fig. 2).

## 4. Correlation among the residuals of the L-Vm and L-Rs relations: are disk galaxies sub-maximal?

As mentioned in the introduction, if dark matter dominates strongly, then variations in the disk density will not affect significantly the shape and amplitude of the RC, and in particular the Vm, for a given disk mass. Courteau & Rix (1998; hereafter CR98) studied this question in a statistical sense by using the Tully-Fisher (TF) and L-Rs relations. They considered that if the halo component dominates for most of galaxies, then the residuals of the TF relation should not correlate with the residuals of the L-Rs relation, i.e. with the SB of the disk. CR98 analyzed two large observational samples of high SB galaxies and found a very small correlation among the residuals of these relations. So they concluded that high SB galaxies are sub-maximum disks. On the other hand, observations suggest a dependence of the shape of RCs with SB (see §3). It would seem that these two observational results are at odds one with the other.

According to the models, the shape of RCs may depend on the SB (Fig. 1) and, at the same time, the residuals among the infrared TF and L-Rs relations may not be correlated. In Fig. 2(a) we show $`\delta `$lgVm, the residual of the TF relation vs. $`\delta `$lgRs, the residual of the L-Rs relation. The filled circles are for high SB models while empty circles are for low SB models. The observational sample used by CR98 has values of $`\delta `$lgR between -0.3 and 0.3. Within this range there is a good agreement between models and observations; high SB galaxies show a small negative gradient while for low SB models this behavior is reversed. On average, for galaxies of typical SBs (not very high or not very low SBs) the correlation vanishes. This is because, for a given mass, not only Vm (or V2.2) decreases as the SB decreases, but also the stellar disk mass, Ms (or L); according to our SF mechanism, the efficiency of transformation of gas into stars is lower as the surface density is smaller. In panel (b) of Fig. 2 we plot the non-disturbed galaxies from the homogeneous and complete sample of galaxies of the Ursa Major cluster from Verheijen (1997). The observations follow roughly the same behavior of the high and low SB models!

The argument that dark halo dominance in the RC decomposition implies no correlation among the residuals of the TF and L-Rs relations (CR98) applies for the total disk mass (baryonic mass), i.e. when instead of L (or Ms) we use the total (stars+gas) disk mass, Md. When one passes from Md to L or Ms the compensation effect due to the dependence of SF efficiency on SB eliminates the correlation among the residuals of the TF and L-R$`s`$ relations if it exists. This is why also the residuals of the TF relation are not correlated with SB, and the TF relation of high and low SB galaxies is roughly the same (see FA00). In panel (c) of Fig. 2 we plot the residuals of the Md-Vm and Md-Rs relations for the same models of panel (a) (where $`\text{f}\text{d}=0.05`$ was used). The average slope of the correlation is $`0.35`$ (this slope is $`0.5`$ for maximum disks). If a shallow core is introduced (see §3.1), then the slope is steeper, $`0.4`$. For $`\text{f}\text{d}0.03`$ the slope results close to $`0.2`$ and $`0.25`$ for the cuspy and shallow CDM halos, respectively.

Do observations show a correlation among the residuals of the Md-Vm and Md-Rs relations? In order to answer this question we constructed the baryonic TF and Md-Rs relations using the data from Verheijen (1997) with a distance to Ursa Major of 20.7 Mpc. The residuals from these relations are shown in Fig. 3(d). In order to calculate Md we used the fiducial M/LK-($`BR`$) relation presented in Bell & de Jong (2001), and for the LSB galaxies we used the M/LK obtained by Verheijen (1997) for the unconstrained fits of the RCs to an isothermal model. The gas mass was estimated from the integrated HI flux, taking into account the fraction of He and H2. The approximate slope of the correlation among the residuals is $`0.25`$. This is in agreement with our models with $`\text{f}\text{d}0.03`$ and shallow cores, although due to the large uncertainties in the observational derivation we do not think that we are able to constrain between cuspy or shallow halos. If fd is much larger than 0.03, the observational inference is pointing to dark-matter-dominated galaxies, i.e. cuspy halos. Nevertheless, we have already seen that several arguments suggest $`\text{f}\text{d}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.03`$.

## 5. Conclusions

$``$ The outer RCs of disk galaxies formed within $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halos, assuming detailed angular momentum conservation, tend to be more declining as the SB, b/d ratio, galaxy mass fraction fd, and mass (luminosity) gets larger. The dominant correlation is the SB one and the key parameter is $`\lambda `$. Since the mass correlates with SB, then the RC shape correlates with L, but an extra correlation of fd with mass (feedback?) is necessary to reproduce Persic et al. (1996) synthetic RCs. For fd=0.05 the halo component dominates typically in the RC decomposition and only the highest SB models tend to be maximum disks.

$``$ Several arguments suggest $`\text{f}\text{d}0.03`$, with probably a small dependence on mass. For this case, given the $`\lambda `$-distribution, more than 50% of disk galaxies are of low SB and the RCs are still realistic for $`\lambda 0.015`$. On the other hand, even the highest SB models are sub-maximum disks. Introducing shallow cores in the CDM halos, models with $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.035`$ (high SB) are close to the maximum disk solution. As the SB decreases, the model tends to the minimum disk solution.

$``$ Galaxy models of high and low surface density are segregated in the baryonic TF relation. Therefore, the (anti) correlation among the residuals of the Md-Vm and Md-Rs relations is significant. However, when one passes to the TF and L-Rs relations the correlation almost disappears, but the correlation of the RC shape with SB remains, in agreement with observations. This is because as the SB is higher, not only Vm is larger for a given mass, but the luminosity also (the SF efficiency depends on SB!). Thus, models of high and low SB shift along the main TF relation. The lack of correlation among the residuals of the L-Vm and L-R relations should not be interpreted as an evidence of sub-maximal disks, where the RC shape does not depend on SB.

$``$ A first comparison of the correlation among the residuals of the baryonic TF and Md-Rs relations inferred from observations and models suggest that if $`\text{f}\text{d}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}0.05`$, then the observed galaxies are strongly dark-matter-dominated in the center. For the better preferred values of $`\text{f}\text{d}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.05`$, the slope of the observed correlation is in better agreement with models with shallow halos.

#### Acknowledgments.

V.A. thanks the organizers for financial support in order to attend to the meeting, and J.C. Yustis for computational assistance. This work was supported by CONACyT grant 33776-E to V.A.

## References

Avila-Reese, V. & Firmani, C. 2002, ASP Conf. Series, in press (astro-ph/0202195)

Avila-Reese, V., Firmani, C. & Hernández X. 1998, ApJ, 505, 37

Bell, E. & de Jong, R.S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

Blais-Ouellete, C., Amram, P. & Carignan, C. 2000, AJ, 121, 2524

Bolatto, A. D. et al. 2002, ApJ, 565, 238

Bullock, J. et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240

Casertano, S. & van Gorkom, J.H. 1991, AJ, 101, 1231

Côtè, S, Carignan, C. & Freeman, K. 2000, AJ, 120, 3027

Corsini, E.M. et al., 1998, A&A, 342, 671

Courteau, S., & Rix, H-W. 1998, ApJ, 513, 561 (CR98)

Dalcanton J.J., Spergel D.N., & Summers F.J., 1997, ApJ, 482, 659

Davé, R. et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 473

de Blok, W.J.G. & McGaugh, S.S 1997, MNRAS, 290, 533

de Blok, W.J.G, McGaugh, S. S. & Rubin, V. C. 2001, AJ, 122, 2396

de Jong, R.S. & Lacey, C. 2000, ApJ, 545, 781

Firmani, C. & Avila-Reese, V. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 457 (FA00)

Firmani, C. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 713

Marchesini, D. et al. 2002, astro-ph/0202075

McGaugh S.S. & de Blok W.J.G., 1997, ApJ, 481, 689

Mo H.J., Mao S. & White S.D.M., 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

Palunas, P. & Williams, T.B. 2000, AJ, 120, 2884

Persic, M., Salucci, P. & Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27

Salucci P. & Persic M. 1999, A&A, 351, 442

van den Bosch, F.C., 2001, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0112566v1)

Verheijen, M.A.W., 1997, PhD. Thesis, Groningen University