text:
# Universality of the off-equilibrium response function in the kinetic Ising chain

## I Introduction

The generalization of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) to slowly relaxing systems, such as glasses, is an issue of foremost importance for understanding non-equilibrium processes. Ordinary FDT relates the autocorrelation $`C(t,t_w)`$ and the integrated response $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ functions, which both depend in equilibrium on the time difference $`tt_w`$, where $`t_w`$ is the time elapsed after the sample preparation. A general feature of slow kinetics, instead, is the aging property, namely the dependence of the time-scale of relaxation on the time $`t_w`$. This feature generally shows up both in $`C(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi (t,t_w)`$. In the context of mean-field models for spin glasses it was shown  that, for large $`t_w`$, $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ depends on the two times through the autocorrelation function alone

$$\chi (t,t_w)=\chi [C(t,t_w)].$$
(1)
This property holds quite generally in a wide class of aging systems where deviations from the ordinary equilibrium FDT, namely $`T\chi (C)=C(t,t)C(t,t_w)`$, result in a nontrivial fluctuation dissipation ratio $`X(C)=Td\chi (C)/dC`$. Recently, a theorem has been proven  linking $`X(C)`$ to static properties

$$\frac{dX(C)}{dC}|_{C=q}=P(q)$$
(2)
where $`P(q)`$ is the equilibrium probability distribution of the overlaps. This opens the way to a classification of aging systems according to the structure of their equilibrium states  and to the recognition that the properties of the response to a perturbation are universal in systems sharing the same overlap distribution.

The ordering process of ferromagnetic systems provides a simplified framework for the study of the off-equilibrium FDT because the main features of slow relaxation are fully exhibited but the structure of their equilibrium state is simple and exactly known. While (1) is generally obeyed , the validity of (2) in this case depends on dimensionality. For $`d>1`$, (2) holds asymptotically, implying the same fluctuation dissipation ratio, and hence of $`\chi (C)`$, for all these systems . This applies, in particular, to different dynamical realizations of the same Hamiltonian model such as ferromagnets with non-conserved (NCOP) or conserved (COP) order parameter . However the picture is totally different in the case of the Ising chain. With NCOP, (2) is not obeyed  and, instead, a non trivial $`X(C)`$ is found  that cannot be connected to static properties.

These results suggest that the nature of $`X(C)`$ is essentially dynamical in this case. A natural question, then, is about which properties of the kinetics are reflected by $`\chi (C)`$. In order to address this point, we study in this paper the response of the one-dimensional Ising model with Kawasaki spin-exchange dynamics quenched to a low temperature, in the scaling regime preceding equilibration. In this case the order parameter is conserved and the microscopic mechanism whereby coarsening of domains is produced differs completely from the dynamics with single spin flip. With NCOP interfaces are independent brownian walkers whose density is progressively reduced due to annihilation events. With COP, instead, the motion of interfaces is mediated by evaporation, diffusion and recondensation of single monomers. Despite this completely different character of the dynamics, we show that $`\chi (C)`$ is the same for COP and NCOP. Due to the violation of the hypotheses of theorem (2) this universal character cannot be traced back to statics but it is more likely to have a common dynamical origin. Since the basic coarsening mechanisms with COP or NCOP are profoundly different, other kinetic properties, of a more general and fundamental nature, determine $`\chi (C)`$ . The analysis carried out in this article shows that the total response can be viewed as due to the elementary contributions given by single domains. In the kinetic process domains coarsen and translate and the complex interplay between these two mechanisms produces the response. Starting from this idea we introduce simple models where a single domain is allowed to diffuse in a random environment. In this framework, the elementary response generated by the domain can be studied and from its knowledge the behavior of the original Ising chain is inferred by means of scaling arguments. The details of the rules for the motion do not change the overall behavior of the response. This approach provides a clear physical interpretation of how the response is produced in the Ising model.

These considerations are of a general nature and apply, in principle, to any dimension. On the other hand, the occurrence in $`d=1`$ of an off-equilibrium response which never vanishes, as opposed to the cases with $`d>1`$, is due to the special character of domain walls motion in one dimension. Actually, in $`d>1`$ the evolution of a domain is the result of two competing drives. The first is the tendency to lower surface tension by making interfaces straight. The second is the drift towards regions where the random field is favorable. For long times the first mechanism always prevails, and the response generated by the drift of domains is negligible . In $`d=1`$, instead, domain walls are point-like and surface tension does not play any role; moreover the drift mechanism is so efficient as to generate a non-vanishing response even in the limit of large times, when the interface density decreases to zero.

This paper is organized in six Sections. Section II is devoted to a description of the COP dynamics of the unperturbed Ising chain. In Section III the effects of a perturbation are discussed and the response function is introduced, showing the analogy with the NCOP dynamics and the universality of $`\chi (C)`$. Models for a single diffusing domain are discussed in Sections IV and V, where scaling arguments are presented to illustrate the common origin of the response within the two types of dynamics. In Section VI we discuss the relevance of our results for different systems and draw some conclusions.

## II Unperturbed dynamics

We consider the one-dimensional Ising model with ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor coupling constant, whose Hamiltonian is

$$_0(\{s_i\})=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}s_is_{i+1},$$
(3)
where $`s_i=\pm 1`$. The system is quenched from an uncorrelated high temperature equilibrium state to the final temperature $`T`$. Evolution takes place through Kawasaki spin-exchange dynamics, i.e. swaps between antiparallel nearest-neighbor spins. In this way magnetization is a conserved quantity. The model describes lattice gases or binary alloys. The probability of exchanging $`s_i`$,$`s_{i+1}`$ is assumed to be

$$p_T=\mathrm{min}[e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{T}},1]$$
(4)
where $`T`$ is measured in units of the Boltzmann constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2J(s_{i1}s_i+s_{i+1}s_{i+2})`$ is the energy change.

The basic features of the dynamics following an instantaneous quench are discussed in . Depending on the energy change elementary moves can be distinguished into three classes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=4J,0,4J`$. The first kind of process is evaporation, namely the separation of a spin from the boundary of a domain. Processes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ are the diffusion of a single spin (monomer) in the bulk of a domain of the other phase. When a diffusing monomer reaches an interface a condensation event occurs: The spin joins a domain. This process implies an energy change $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=4J`$.

Evaporation is an activated process occurring over a characteristic time $`\tau _{ev}=\mathrm{exp}(4J/T)`$. For low temperatures $`\tau _{ev}`$ is large and one observes a long interval $`t\tau _{ev}`$ during which evaporation practically does not happen. In this regime a reduction of the kink density $`\rho (t)`$ can be obtained only by the diffusion and condensation of the monomers present in the initial state. In order to do this single spins move a distance of the order of the initial coherence length $`\xi `$ in a typical time $`\xi ^2`$. This leads to a decay  of the density of diffusing single spins over a characteristic time $`\tau _s\xi ^2`$. In the case we are concerned with, a quench from very high temperature, $`\tau _s`$ is of order unity and one observes a fast decay to a plateau on short time-scales (Fig. 1). In the regime $`\tau _st\tau _{ev}`$ no diffusing spins are left and $`\rho (t)`$ remains constant. At times of order $`\tau _{ev}`$ evaporation events begin to occur and the dynamics restarts (Fig. 1). Evaporated spins diffuse and they may recondense on a kink different from the one where they were emitted. This is the well known mechanism leading to the decay $`\rho (t)(t/\tau _{ev})^{1/3}`$: in this regime, dynamic scaling is obeyed. This behavior lasts until $`t\tau _{eq}^{COP}`$ such that $`\rho (\tau _{eq}^{COP})=\rho _{eq}\mathrm{exp}(2J/T)`$, the equilibrium kink density. At this time domains reach a size such that a second monomer is emitted when the first one is still diffusing. When they meet they form a stable dimer and this process exactly balances the domain annihilation due to the evaporation-condensation mechanism, so that $`\rho `$ keeps its equilibrium value. Regarding the data presented in Fig. 1, for $`T=0.7`$ the exponent $`1/3`$ is not clearly observed because the system equilibrates too soon. For $`T=0.48`$ the effective exponent gradually decreases toward $`1/3`$. At the longest times simulated the effective exponent is $`0.3`$.

The autocorrelation function is defined as

$$C(t,t_w)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}s_i(t)s_i(t_w),$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates thermal averaging. This quantity is shown in Fig. 2. $`C(t,t_w)`$ strongly depends on the range of times $`(t_w`$,$`t)`$ considered. In the case $`t_w\tau _{eq}^{COP}`$ considered here the behavior of the autocorrelation function is different for $`t\tau _{eq}^{COP}`$ or $`t\tau _{eq}^{COP}`$. For $`t\tau _{eq}^{COP}`$ $`C(t,t_w)`$ decays as $`[\rho (t)/\rho (t_w)]^\lambda `$. The exponent $`\lambda `$ depends on $`t_w`$ as follows: When $`t_w=0`$, the upper bound $`\lambda d`$, originally proposed by Fisher and Huse  provides the correct value $`\lambda =1`$ for the conserved $`d=1`$ Ising model, as shown analytically and numerically in . Instead, for $`t_w`$ chosen well inside the scaling regime, Yeung, Rao and Desai  found a lower bound $`\lambda 3/2`$ for $`d=1`$. Since $`\lambda =1`$ for $`t_w=0`$ this constraint implies the dependence of $`\lambda `$ on $`t_w`$. To our knowledge, there are no results for the actual value of this exponent when $`t_w0`$. From the data presented in Fig. 2 one observes a power-law decay consistent with $`C(t,t_w)(t_w/t)^{1/2}`$ for the cases $`t_w=10^4,10^5`$. Recalling that $`\rho (t)t^{0.3}`$ in the range of time considered, one obtains $`\lambda 1.66>3/2`$. In this way we show that the lower bound determined in  is correct and that the value of $`\lambda `$ with $`t_w`$ chosen inside the scaling regime is different from the case with $`t_w=0`$. Actually, the value $`\lambda 1.66`$ may indicate that the value $`\lambda =3/2`$ could be asymptotically correct. In order to check this point lower temperatures and larger waiting times should be considered. By plotting $`C(t,t_w)`$ against $`\rho (t)/\rho (t_w)`$ we have checked that also the curve with $`t_w=10^3`$ gives the same exponent $`\lambda >3/2`$, whereas the smaller exponent observed in Fig. 2 is simply due to $`\rho (t)`$ decaying with an effective exponent considerably smaller than $`1/3`$ in the range of times plotted in the Figure. For $`t_w=10^6`$ the curve starts decaying with the same exponent $`\lambda =3/2`$ but then the decrease becomes faster, indicating that the system is close to reaching equilibrium. A second important observation, regarding Figure 2, is the convergence of $`C(t,t_w)`$ towards the scaling behavior $`C(t,t_w)=\widehat{C}(t_w/t)`$, as expected quite generally for slow relaxation  and in particular for coarsening systems . However, differently from NCOP, the convergence in this case is very slow and very large $`t_w`$ must be considered in order to exhibit a good data-collapse.

## III Response to a perturbation

Let us consider the Ising model quenched to temperature $`T`$ in zero field. At time $`t_w`$ a random field

$$h_i=hϵ_i$$
(6)
is applied, so that the hamiltonian is changed into

$$=_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}h_is_i.$$
(7)
The field takes randomly only two values, $`ϵ_i=\pm 1`$, with expectations

$$\overline{ϵ_i}=0$$
(8)
$$\overline{ϵ_iϵ_j}=\delta _{i,j}.$$
(9)
The probability of exchanging two spins $`s_i,s_{i+1}`$ is (4) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2J(s_{i1}s_i+s_{i+1}s_{i+2})+2h(s_iϵ_i+s_{i+1}ϵ_{i+1})`$. We consider $`h/T`$ sufficiently small in order to be in the linear response regime. We are interested in the scaling regime, i. e. times such that $`\rho (t)\rho _{eq}`$. Moreover we want the qualitative features of the dynamics, presented above, to be unaffected by the external field. This imposes an additional constraint $`\rho (t)\xi ^1(h)`$, where $`\xi (h)=4J^2/h^2`$ is the Imry-Ma length . For the values of $`h`$ and $`T`$ considered, $`\xi ^1(h)\rho _{eq}`$ so that $`\rho (t)`$ is unchanged by the presence of the random field from the instant of the quench up to equilibration (Fig. 1).

We consider the integrated response function

$$\chi (t,t_w)=\underset{\frac{h}{T}0}{lim}\frac{1}{Nh}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{ϵ_is_i_h},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{}_h`$ denotes average in presence of the external field. Before discussing the response of the model with COP, let us briefly recall the behavior with NCOP. In this case equilibrium is reached because spins are flipped spontaneously in the bulk of ordered domains; the characteristic time for this process is $`\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}=\mathrm{exp}(4J/T)`$. The asymptotic value of the response function is the equilibrium susceptibility

$$\chi _{eq}=1/T,$$
(11)
namely $`lim_t\mathrm{}T\chi (t,t_w)=1`$. In equilibrium the bulk of domains is responsible for the response because spins anti-aligned with the random field are more likely to be reversed by thermal excitations. However, for times $`t<\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$ spins in the bulk do not flip; the response observed in this regime is then of non-equilibrium nature. Since the bulk is frozen, $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ must be provided by interfaces. Specifically the motion of kinks is such as to optimize the position of domains with respect to the random field, building up a finite response . The range of times over which the non-equilibrium pattern is observed can be expanded by letting $`T0`$ (keeping $`h/T`$ small, for linear response theory to hold), or $`J\mathrm{}`$. We refer to the latter limit for simplicity, that has the advantage of being easily implemented numerically by forbidding the flip of spins in the bulk. With $`J=\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}=\mathrm{}`$ and the system never equilibrates. The exact solution of the model  with $`J=\mathrm{}`$ yields the aging form

$$T\chi (t,t_w)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{t}{t_w}1}$$
(12)
that converges, in the large $`t`$ limit, to

$$T\chi _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(13)
for large $`t`$. For finite $`J`$, as already anticipated, the response of the model is the same as with $`J=\mathrm{}`$ for times $`t\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$ while, for larger times, the equilibrium susceptibility is recovered.

For what concerns the generalization (1) of the FDT, notice that (12) obeys the scaling form $`\chi (t,t_w)=\widehat{\chi }(t_w/t)`$. Hence eliminating $`t_w/t`$ with $`C(t,t_w)=\widehat{C}(t_w/t)`$ with $`J=\mathrm{}`$ one finds

$$\chi (C)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left[\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}C\right)\right].$$
(14)
This curve is plotted in Fig. 3. In the limit $`C(t,t_w)0`$, namely $`t\mathrm{}`$, the value $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is recovered, as previously discussed. For finite $`J`$ the behavior of $`C(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ is unchanged with respect to the case $`J=\mathrm{}`$ up to $`\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$. Therefore, in the fluctuation-dissipation plot in Fig. 3 the same curve as with $`J=\mathrm{}`$ is followed from $`C(t_w,t_w)=1`$ down to $`C_{eq}=C(\tau _{eq}^{NCOP},t_w)`$. For $`C(t,t_w)<C_{eq}`$, namely for $`t>\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$, the system goes to equilibrium, $`\chi (C)`$ departs from the master curve with $`J=\mathrm{}`$ and approaches $`\chi _{eq}`$. For fixed $`t_w`$, $`C_{eq}`$ grows with temperature, because $`\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$ decreases as $`T`$ is increased. Alternatively, for a given temperature, $`C_{eq}`$ grows by increasing $`t_w`$. In conclusion, the master curve is followed in a wider range by decreasing $`t_w`$ or $`T`$, because in this way $`C_{eq}`$ is reduced. This explains the behavior of $`\chi (C)`$ in Fig. 3.

For Kawasaki dynamics the kinetic process is more complex than in the non-conserved case. The different coarsening mechanism does not simply change the growth law exponent, but even the two-time quantities considered here are radically modified with respect to NCOP. In particular, as discussed in the previous Section, the exponent $`\lambda =3/2`$ differs from the value  $`\lambda =1`$ for Glauber dynamics. Given these differences the fact that the fluctuation-dissipation plot turns out to be the same for NCOP and COP, as will be shown below, is unexpected and far from being trivial.

The fluctuation-dissipation plot with COP is shown in Fig. 4. Curves with different $`t_w`$ collapse on the same master curve for $`C(t,t_w)>C_{eq}`$. The collapse of curves with different $`t_w`$ proves the validity of (1) in the scaling regime even with COP. Moreover, this master curve is the same as with NCOP. As for NCOP, the collapse occurs only when both times $`t`$ and $`t_w`$ belong to the scaling regime. With NCOP scaling is obeyed starting from a microscopic time $`t_0`$, which is temperature independent; with COP this regime is entered after $`\tau _{ev}`$, which depends on $`T`$. Therefore, for low temperatures the time scales over which curves with different $`t_w`$ coincide are completely different in the two cases, as revealed from the waiting times reported in Figs. 3 and 4. Comparing the two Figures, one also concludes that changing $`t_w`$ or $`T`$ only produces a shift of $`C_{eq}`$, the point where $`\chi (C)`$ deviates from the master curve, in complete analogy for both dynamics. Then, on the basis of what is known with NCOP, we expect in the zero temperature limit the master-curve to be followed down to $`C(t,t_w)=0`$. Let us stress that the correlation and the response functions are different for the two dynamics. Only when the response $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ is expressed as a function of the correlation $`C(t,t_w)`$ one obtains the same fluctuation-dissipation relation $`\chi (C)`$.

The universality of the non-equilibrium response with respect to the type of dynamics naturally raises the question of a possible common fundamental origin. As proposed in Section I, this must be of a dynamical character, since the connection (2) between statics and $`\chi (C)`$ cannot be invoked in $`d=1`$. The main dynamical feature of phase-ordering is the presence of a coarsening structure with many competing domains. This suggests to look for the underlying universality in the response of a single domain to the perturbation. In order to test this idea, in the following Sections we investigate simplified models for the motion of a single domain. Underlying this approach is the assumption that $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ of the whole system can be seen as the sum of the response of single domains considered independent. Correlations between domains are only responsible for the growth of their typical size. In this way we are able to identify the diffusive wandering of domains as the origin of the non-equilibrium response, both for NCOP and COP dynamics.

## IV A single domain model with rigid diffusion

Let us consider an isolated domain $`𝒟_l`$ of up spins covering the segment $`[j,j+l]`$ of an infinite one-dimensional lattice. A quenched random variable $`h_i`$ is defined on the sites of the lattice via (6,8,9). At each time step $`𝒟_l`$ is allowed to move rigidly one lattice unit on the right or on the left with probability given by (4), with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=h_jh_{j+l+1}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=h_{j+l}h_{j1}`$ respectively. The model can be regarded as an Ising chain with an initial condition containing $`l`$ up spins in the interval $`[j,j+l]`$ in a sea of down spins. This Ising model is governed by a dynamical rule which conserves the magnetization and allows only rigid translations of the up domain. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is then exactly the energy gain computed through the Ising Hamiltonian (7) with $`i`$ running over the sites occupied by the domain.

For $`h=0`$ the landscape is flat and the position $`x`$ of the center of the domain performs a random walk. Provided the linear response regime ($`h/T0`$) is considered, also for finite $`h`$ the root mean square displacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)`$ in a time interval $`[t_w,t]`$ obeys $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)\sqrt{tt_w}`$, as shown in the inset of Fig. 5. The response function of the domain is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t,t_w)=\underset{\frac{h}{T}0}{lim}\frac{1}{h}\overline{\underset{i𝒟_l}{}ϵ_i_h}.$$
(15)
The notation $`\mathrm{}_h`$ indicates averaging, for a single realization of the random field, over the trajectories of $`𝒟_l`$. Notice that, differently from (10), $`i`$ runs only over sites of $`𝒟_l`$.

Let us consider the behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t,t_w)`$ for short times. Initially, at $`t=t_w`$, the response is zero. By moving one lattice spacing the sum in (15) can change by a value $`0,+2,2`$. In the first two cases the energy is unchanged or decreased; in the last one $`\mathrm{\Delta }E>0`$ and the probability that such a move is accepted is $`\mathrm{exp}(2h/T)`$. Then, averaging over the trajectories and the random field, (15) gives $`T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t_w+1,t_w)=lim_{\frac{h}{T}0}[T/h]\overline{_{i𝒟_l}ϵ_i_h}=lim_{\frac{h}{T}0}T[1\mathrm{exp}(2h/T)]/(2h)`$. Taking the limit $`h/T0`$ the linear response function follows $`T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t_w+1,t_w)=1`$.

For long times $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t,t_w)`$ approaches, assuming equilibration, the static susceptibility

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{eq}^{𝒟_l}=\underset{\frac{h}{T}0}{lim}\frac{T}{h}\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z(h,T)}{h}$$
(16)
where

$$Z(h,T)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{l}{}}p_ke^{\frac{h(l2k)}{T}}$$
(17)
is the partition function. Here $`k`$ is the number of sites inside the domain where $`ϵ_i=1`$ and $`p_k=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l}{k}\right)2^l`$ is the probability of having a particular value of $`k`$. From (17) one easily finds

$$Z(h,T)=\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{h}{T}\right)\right]^l$$
(18)
yielding $`T\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{eq}^{𝒟_l}=lim_{h/T0}(lT/h)\mathrm{tanh}(h/T)\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(h/T\right)\right]^{l1}=l`$.

The behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t,t_w)`$, obtained numerically, is plotted in Fig. 5, showing the validity of the scaling form

$$T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t,t_w)=lg(y)$$
(19)
where $`y(t,t_w)=\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)/l`$. The scaling function behaves as

$$g(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}y\hfill & \text{ for }y1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ for }y1\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
in agreement with the analytical results for short and long times.

So far we have studied a model where the size $`l`$ of the domain is conserved by the dynamical rule. However, in order to apply this result to the description of the Ising chain, where domains coarsen, we consider now a slightly modified version where the size of the single domain varies stochastically while growing on average. In such a situation, we indicate with $`l(t)`$ the size of the domain at time $`t`$, with $`L(t)`$ the average of $`l(t)`$, and define $`y(t,t_w)`$ via

$$y(t,t_w)=\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)/L(t).$$
(21)
We have performed numerical simulations where the size $`l(t)`$ of $`𝒟_l`$ was increased with a stochastic rule such that $`L(t)=L(0)+a\sqrt{t}`$, with $`L(0)=10`$ and $`a=1/8`$ (these values are chosen for numerical convenience). Fig. 5 shows that even in this case the scaling form (19,20) holds.

### A Connection with the Ising model

From the knowledge of the response of a single domain, we can recover the behavior of the Ising chain, where many domains compete, by assuming that the latter can be adequately described by a collection of quasi-independent domains of average size $`L(t)`$. This means that all effects produced by correlations between domains, apart from the increase of $`L(t)`$, are supposed not to be relevant. This assumption will be further discussed in Section V.

The overall response of the Ising model is then given by

$$\chi (t,t_w)=\underset{l}{}𝒫(l,t)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_l}(t,t_w)$$
(22)
where $`𝒫(l,t)`$ is the fraction of spins belonging to domains of size $`l`$ at time $`t`$, which obeys  the scaling form $`𝒫(l,t)=L(t)^1f[l/L(t)]`$. The analysis can be carried out more easily with the approximation $`f(x)\delta (x1)`$, i. e. assuming that all domains have exactly the same size $`L(t)`$. Then

$$\chi (t,t_w)L(t)^1\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{𝒟_L}(t,t_w)\frac{1}{T}g(y)$$
(23)
where $`y(t,t_w)`$ is defined by (21) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)`$ is the average distance traveled by domains of size $`L(t)`$. On the basis of the large time behavior of $`y(t,t_w)`$, three situations can be distinguished, namely $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=\mathrm{}`$, $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=const.>0`$ or $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=0`$, giving rise to different values for the response.

The first case occurs in the equilibrium state of the Ising model because domains diffuse while their size stays constant due to the formation of new kinks. On the basis of (23), for the total response of the Ising chain one obtains $`lim_t\mathrm{}\chi (t,t_w)=\chi _{eq}=1/T`$. This is indeed the value (11) found for the original Ising chain.

The second case, $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=const.>0`$, occurs when $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)`$ and $`L(t)`$ grow with the same exponent. This happens in the scaling regime, both with spin-flip or Kawasaki dynamics. With NCOP this is true because interfaces are brownian walkers

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)(tt_w)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(24)
while it is well known  that

$$L(t)t^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(25)
With spin-exchange dynamics the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)`$ can be obtained with the following argument: The displacement of domains is mediated by the evaporation and condensation of monomers. When a monomer travels a distance $`L(t)`$, leaving one domain and joining the nearest, one of the boundaries of each of the two domains is displaced by one lattice unit. The number of monomers per unit time that leave a domain and reach the neighbor instead of recondensing on the original one is $`\rho (t)`$ . Hence, on average, it takes a time $`L(t)`$ to move a domain by a unitary distance. Since domains move randomly the law of brownian motion

$$\left[\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)\right]^2=2D(tt_w),$$
(26)
is obeyed, with a diffusion coefficient

$$D\rho (t).$$
(27)
Using the appropriate growth law for COP

$$L(t)=\rho (t)^1t^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(28)
one gets

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)\left[(tt_w)/t^{\frac{1}{3}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(29)
Hence for long times $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)t^\beta `$, with $`\beta =1/2`$ for NCOP and $`\beta =1/3`$ for COP. Comparing (24,25) and (28,29) one concludes, as already anticipated, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)L(t)`$ regardless of the dynamical rule. Hence, recalling (21) one obtains with both dynamics the universal form

$$y=y_{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{t_w}{t}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(30)
where $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a constant that may depend on the dynamical rule. Inserting this expression into (23) one recognizes that the global response obeys the scaling behavior $`\chi (t,t_w)=\widehat{\chi }(t_w/t)`$ which, as discussed in Section III, is correct for the Ising chain. Moreover one also obtains $`lim_t\mathrm{}y=y_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$ and, therefore, an asymptotic non-equilibrium value $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}=g(y_{\mathrm{}})/T\chi _{eq}`$ is generated. This limiting value is different from the static susceptibility $`\chi _{eq}`$ because $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ is finite, as opposite to the equilibrium case discussed above where $`lim_t\mathrm{}y=\mathrm{}`$. This is in agreement with the behavior of the original Ising model (13), with both dynamics.

Our approach does not allow the evaluation of $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$. However it reproduces the main features of the non-equilibrium response and offers an insight into what goes on after a perturbation has been switched on in the one-dimensional Ising model. In particular, the model points out clearly which is the mechanism whereby the response is produced. Actually, the domain responds to the perturbation by moving so as to optimize its position with respect to the random field. Such a sharp statement is made possible in this context by the fact that the dynamical rules do not allow any other possibility and indicates that the same mechanism is at work also in the Ising chain. The discussion presented insofar shows also that another physical ingredient plays a fundamental role in $`d=1`$: The convergence to a finite value of $`y(t,t_w)`$, namely $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=y_{\mathrm{}}0`$. This property holds because the displacement of domains in $`d=1`$ is proportional to their average size. With these ingredients the one-domain model predicts a finite limiting value $`lim_t\mathrm{}\chi (t,t_w)=\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ of the response of the Ising chain. We emphasize that the property $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=y_{\mathrm{}}0`$ is far from being trivial. Although we restrict the analysis in this paper to one dimension, we believe this to hold only in the $`d=1`$ case. As discussed in Section I, in one dimension domains diffuse in order to lower the magnetic energy in absence of the additional force produced by surface tension, because kinks are point-like objects. In $`d>1`$, instead, the displacement of an interface is not only ruled by the random field but is also governed by curvature. This additional mechanism lowers surface tension and competes with the tendency to lower the magnetic energy. The weakening of the drift of domains limits their motion so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)`$ grows more slowly than $`L(t)`$. As a result $`lim_t\mathrm{}y(t,t_w)=0`$ and the response produced in this way, from (19) and (20), vanishes. Therefore we expect the third possible behavior of $`y(t,t_w)`$ introduced above to be realized for $`d>1`$.

## V A single domain model with spin exchange dynamics

In the previous Section we have discussed the diffusion of a rod of average size $`L(t)`$. With this dynamics we have obtained the formula (19) for the response. The connection with the Ising model was then made possible by scaling arguments where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)`$ and $`L(t)`$ were assumed a priori to behave as in the NCOP or COP Ising model. The dynamics of the rod however is quite different from the actual behavior of the Ising model, where generally domains do not move as a whole. Furthermore, while diffusion is the mechanism whereby interfaces move in the Ising model with NCOP, as stated by (24), with COP the law (29) is obeyed, showing a non brownian character. Despite these shortcomings of the model, we have obtained a good description of the Ising chain and this suggests that the actual details of the dynamics are irrelevant.

In this Section we introduce an improved single-domain model which takes into account the different kinetics for NCOP and COP. In particular, for COP, the evaporation-condensation mechanism which rules the evolution is taken into account.

We study an Ising chain of size $`N`$ with periodic boundary conditions and two interfaces initially located in $`x_1=1`$, $`x_2=N/2+1`$. We consider both spin-flip and spin-exchange dynamics, and require the initial structure with only two domains of opposite sign to be preserved at all times. This condition is guaranteed if the temperature is low enough. However simulations at very low $`T`$ would be numerically too demanding, in particular for COP. For this reason we implement the aforementioned condition in a different way: With NCOP we let $`J=\mathrm{}`$ by forbidding flips in the bulk. For COP we use a modified dynamics where new dimers are not allowed to form. Specifically, when two monomers meet, one of the two particles is removed and attached randomly to another kink. With these rules a configuration with only two domains persists.

Let us focus on one of the two domains, indicated with $`𝒟`$, with the center located in $`(x_1+x_2)/2`$. With COP the system evolves via exchanges of monomers between the two boundaries of $`𝒟`$. Since at low $`T`$ at most one monomer is present the size $`l=x_2x_1`$ of $`𝒟`$ is practically conserved. With NCOP, on the other hand, interfaces diffuse independently and the size changes. We consider the range of times $`t(N/2)^2`$ so that annihilation events do not happen. Although the size of domains changes, the average value $`L=\overline{x_2x_1_h}`$ is constant, due to symmetry. Then $`L=const.`$ with both types of dynamics. Our goal is to compute

$$\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)=\underset{\frac{h}{T}0}{lim}\frac{1}{Nh}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{ϵ_is_i_h}.$$
(31)
Notice that this is exactly the response (10) defined for the Ising model. The subscript $`𝒟`$ simply reminds that we are in a situation with only two domains of fixed size.

Before discussing the behavior of the model let us comment on the relationship between this approach and the one presented in the previous Section. An obvious difference is the presence of two domains instead of one. However, with the choice $`L=N/2`$ the domains are equivalent and this merely doubles the response. On the other hand, in the regime $`t(N/2)^2`$ considered now, $`y(t,t_w)=\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)/L1`$. Therefore, if this model is equivalent to the previous one we expect to recover the results with $`y(t,t_w)1`$ of the previous Section.

With NCOP the behavior of the model can be deduced from the knowledge of the response $`\chi _{sing}(t,t_w)`$ of the case with a single kink located in $`x(t)`$ and fixed boundary conditions discussed in . For this system it was shown exactly that

$$\chi _{sing}(t,t_w)=\underset{\frac{h}{T}0}{lim}\frac{1}{Nh}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{s_i_hϵ_i}=\frac{2}{NT}\delta x(t,t_w)(tt_w)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(32)
where $`\delta x(t,t_w)=x(t)x(t_w)`$ is the average distance traveled by the kink in the time interval $`[t_w,t]`$. Result (32) allows one to deduce the behavior of the present model. Denoting by $`\chi _{sing}^{(1)}(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi _{sing}^{(2)}(t,t_w)`$ the responses associated to the two interfaces the total response is simply given by

$$\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)\chi _{sing}^{(1)}(t,t_w)+\chi _{sing}^{(2)}(t,t_w)\delta x_1(t,t_w)+\delta x_2(t,t_w)$$
(33)
because the two interfaces are independent. Indicating with $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)=[\delta x_1(t,t_w)+\delta x_2(t,t_w)]/2(tt_w)^{1/2}`$ the average distance traveled by $`𝒟`$ in the interval $`[t_w,t]`$ one finds

$$\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)\mathrm{\Delta }x(t,t_w)(tt_w)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(34)
Going back to the Ising model, assuming again that domains are non-interacting, the response is obtained by multiplying $`\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)`$ times the number of domains present $`\rho (t)t^{1/2}`$,

$$\chi (t,t_w)\rho (t)\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w),$$
(35)
yielding

$$\chi (t,t_w)=\chi _{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{t_w}{t}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(36)
where $`\alpha =1/2`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the asymptotic value. Then, from (19,20,30) one recovers the behavior of the previous model in the small $`y(t,t_w)`$ limit, as expected.

With NCOP this result has been obtained by letting the single interface move as in the original Ising model, namely with the same update rules for the spins. With COP this issue is more subtle. In the Ising model the diffusivity of domains depends on time via (27). In the present case, with a fixed size of the domains, $`D`$ is constant. To keep this into account, we consider a spin-exchange dynamics generated by the modified probability

$$p_T(s_i,s_{i+1})=\mathrm{min}[n^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{T}},1],$$
(37)
where $`n(t)`$ is a counter of evaporation events. With this rule the diffusivity is proportional to $`n^{1/2}(t)\rho (t)`$, as in the Ising model. The response of the model, obtained by numerical simulations, is plotted in Fig. 6, and for long times

$$\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)(tt_w)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(38)
From (38) the response of the Ising model is obtained through (35), leading to the same form (36) as for NCOP, but with $`\alpha =1/3`$. This shows that the present model, evolving with two different dynamical rules with NCOP or COP, gives rise to different responses. This agrees with the behavior of the Ising model, where both $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ and $`C(t,t_w)`$ are different but $`\chi (C)`$ is the same.

The approach in terms of single domains is based on the assumption (35) of their quasi-independence. We have shown that this hypothesis allows a description of the Ising kinetics in terms of scaling arguments and provides a good agreement with the original model. We are now in a position to substantiate further the validity of this assumption by checking the accuracy of (35).

From the knowledge of $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ for the Ising model we extract the effective response due to a single domain defined by

$$\chi (t,t_w)=\rho (t)\chi _{eff}(t,t_w).$$
(39)
The accuracy of the independent domain approximation can be determined by comparing $`\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)`$ with $`\chi _{eff}(t,t_w)`$. With NCOP this issue has been considered in  showing a very good agreement. In particular $`\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi _{eff}(t,t_w)`$ both increase as $`t^{1/2}`$ for large $`t`$. For COP the behavior of $`\chi _{eff}(t,t_w)`$ is shown in Fig. 7. For large $`t`$, in particular, $`\chi ^𝒟(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi _{eff}(t,t_w)`$ grow with the same exponent $`1/3`$.

The results of this Section point out the robustness of the mechanism generating the response in $`d=1`$ which only relies on the coarsening domain structure of the system. Provided this character is maintained the global behavior of the susceptibility and, in particular, the convergence to a finite non-equilibrium value, is the same.

## VI Discussion

In this paper we have studied the off-equilibrium response of the $`1d`$ Ising model. We have shown that the fluctuation dissipation plot is the same with NCOP or COP. In $`d=1`$, where the connection (2) with statics cannot be invoked, this universal character has a dynamical origin, as shown by the analysis of simplified models presented in Sections IV and V.

An important issue is the relevance of the picture provided by the Ising chain for arbitrary dimension. In $`d=1`$ with NCOP the Ising model reaches equilibration on the characteristic time $`\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}=\rho _{eq}^2=\mathrm{exp}(4J/T)`$. As mentioned in Section III this is the time necessary for flipping spins in the bulk of domains; the same mechanism is also responsible for the equilibrium response $`\chi _{eq}(tt_w)`$. The off-equilibrium response, instead, develops in the regime $`t<\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$. Hence in $`d=1`$ two kinds of response exist which are observed on different time-scales separated by $`\tau _{eq}^{NCOP}`$. This feature gives rise to the pattern presented in Fig. 3.

The case $`d>1`$ presents some differences. For quenches below $`T_c`$ global equilibration is never reached in an infinite system. Despite this fact the response can still be split into an equilibrium and an aging part: The bulk of domains, which behaves as a pure phase and attains local equilibrium, produces $`\chi _{eq}(tt_w)`$ which obeys (1) and (2). Domain walls, instead, are responsible for the non-equilibrium part which obeys  the scaling form

$$T\chi (t,t_w)=t_w^af\left(\frac{t}{t_w}\right)$$
(40)
with

$$a=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{d1}{4}\hfill & \text{, for }d<3\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\hfill & \text{, for }d>3\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
and logarithmic corrections in $`d=3`$. The dependence of $`a`$ on dimensionality results from the competition between the drift of interfaces produced by the perturbation and the force caused by their curvature. When $`a=1/2`$, as for $`d>3`$, the response is simply proportional to $`\rho (t)`$ implying that a single interface produces a response which does not depend on time. This is what happens if interfacial spins simply polarize according to the random field on a microscopic time-scale. On the other hand, from the knowledge of the behavior of the one-dimensional case, we know that the wandering of interfaces gives rise to a single-interface response growing as $`(tt_w)^{1/2}`$. Therefore a natural interpretation is the following: Curvature, which is absent in $`d=1`$ becomes progressively more important as $`d`$ increases, due to the coordination number. The attempt to lower surface tension weakens the drift of domain walls and inhibits the response mechanism associated with it. This progressively increases the value of $`a`$ with respect to $`d=1`$ as dimensionality is increased. Then, for $`d>3`$ the motion of domain walls is fully governed by curvature whereas, for $`d<3`$ the drift mechanism partly compensate the decrease of $`\rho (t)`$, resulting in a smaller exponent $`a`$. Only at the lower critical dimension $`d=1`$, however, this mechanism is so efficient as to balance exactly the loss of interfaces yielding $`a=0`$ and an asymptotic finite limit $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}`$.

For $`d>1`$ the presence of an equilibrium and an off-equilibrium response, and the mechanisms whereby they are produced, strongly resemble the situation in $`d=1`$. However, while for $`d=1`$ they are observed on different time-scales, for $`d>1`$ they are both developed during the phase-ordering process. Then, for $`d>1`$, since the equilibrium part alone obeys (2), in order for the total response to fit into the scheme (2), the off-equilibrium contribution must vanish in the large $`t_w`$ limit. (41) shows that this happens for $`d>1`$ but the decay of the off-equilibrium response for $`d<3`$ is slower than usually expected on the basis of the idea that the random field simply polarizes  the interfacial spins if $`d3`$.

For $`d=1`$ in the phase-separation regime $`\chi _{eq}(tt_w)`$ is absent and only the off-equilibrium response is developed which in this case does not vanish for $`t_w\mathrm{}`$ and causes the breakdown of the connection (2) with the statics.

In conclusion, with NCOP an overall discussion of the response of the Ising model to stochastic perturbations can be given in terms of two mechanisms whose interplay is regulated by dimensionality. The equilibrium response, which prevails in $`d>1`$, only relies on the structure of the equilibrium state through (2) and, therefore, is independent from dynamics. In this paper it was shown that in $`d=1`$ also the off-equilibrium response is independent on the kinetic rules, although this property has a different origin. The possible universality of the out of equilibrium response in higher dimensionality and the generality of the scaling form (40) are interesting issues which deserve to be investigated in the future.

As a final comment, we discuss the possible relevance of our studies for systems with a vector order parameter with $`N`$ components. In this case spins basically rotate rather than flip and this is totally different with respect to scalar systems. The absence of bulk and interfaces prevents a straightforward extension of the concepts developed in this paper and the mechanisms by which the response is built up in the vectorial case is complex and still not well understood. However, the exact computation of the response function in the solvable large-$`N`$ model  has recently shown a pattern which resembles the behavior of scalar systems. Actually in the large-$`N`$ model the response function can be explicitly split into an equilibrium and an off-equilibrium part. It can be shown, moreover, that the former satisfies (2) while the latter obeys (40) with an exponent $`a`$ that vanishes at the lower critical dimension of the model which, due to the vectorial character, is $`d=2`$. This close analogy with the scalar case shows that, although the microscopic dynamics is different, the same competition between two mechanisms for the development of the response exists probably for every value of $`N`$ and that the same scaling relation (40) holds. This suggests the idea that the off-equilibrium response may be independent from the dynamics also in vectorial systems, as we have shown for the Ising model at the lower critical dimension.

†corberi@na.infn.it ‡lippiello@sa.infn.it

§zannetti@na.infn.it \*castella@pil.phys.uniroma1.it


format: text

text:
# Theorem 1

ON BALANCED PRODUCTS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS $`x_\mathbf{\pm }^a`$
IN COLOMBEAU ALGEBRA $`𝒢\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}`$
B. P. Damyanov

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, INRNE - Theory Group
72, Tzarigradsko Shosse, 1784 Sofia, BULGARIA

Results on products of the distributions $`x_\pm ^a`$ and $`\delta ^{\left(p\right)}\left(x\right)`$ with coinciding singularities are derived when the products are balanced so that they exist in the distribution space. These results follow the idea of a known result on distributional products published by Jan Mikusiński in 1966. They are obtained in Colombeau algebra $`𝒢\left(\right)`$of generalized functions that contains the distribution space and the notion of ’association’ in it allows obtaining results in terms of distributions.

Key Words : Distribution, Product, Colombeau Algebra

Introduction

In 1966, Jan Mikusiński published the following well-known result  :

$$x^1.x^1\pi ^2\delta (x).\delta (x)=x^2,x.$$
(1)
Although, neither of the products on the left-hand side here exists, their difference still has a correct meaning in the distribution space $`𝒟^{}()`$. Formulas including balanced products of distributions with coinciding singularities can be found in the mathematical and physical literature. For balanced products of that kind, we used the name ‘products of Mikusiński type’ in a previous paper , where we derived a generalization of the basic Mikusiński product (1) in Colombeau algebra of tempered generalized functions (see equation (2) below).

We recall that the Colombeau algebra $`𝒢`$, introduced first in , has followed various constructions of differential algebras that include distributions, proposed by König, Berg, Antonevich and Radyno, Egorov, and other authors. Lately, the Colombeau algebra has become very popular since it has almost optimal properties, as long as the problem of multiplication of Schwartz distributions is concerned: $`𝒢`$ is an associative differential algebra with the distributions linearly embedded in it, the multiplication being compatible with the products of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-differentiable functions. Moreover, the algebra $`𝒢`$ has a relation of ’association’ that is a faithful generalization of the equality of distributions. This notion enables obtaining results ‘on distributional level’ that are in consistency with distribution theory.

In this paper, we prove several results on balanced products of the distributions $`x_\pm ^a,a\mathrm{\Omega }=\{a:a1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, as they are embedded in Colombeau algebra and the products admit associated distributions. The results extends those proved in  regarding the distributional products $`x_+^a.x_{}^b`$ for $`a+b>2`$. Our intention here is to treat the singular cases when $`a+b=p`$ and $`p`$ takes negative integer values. So, we consider a balanced product of $`x_+^a.x_{}^b`$ in the ‘boundary case’ $`a+b=2`$ and then proceed one step further dealing with the case $`a+b=3`$. Another general result on multiplication of the distributions $`x_+^a,x_{}^b`$ as a balanced product is proved when $`a+b=p`$, for arbitrary $`p`$.

1. Definitions and notation

We first recall the basic definitions of Colombeau algebra $`𝒢`$ on the real line $``$.

Definition 1 — If $``$ stands for the natural numbers, denote $`_0=\{0\}`$, and $`\delta _{ij}=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ if $`i=j,=0`$ otherwise$`\},i,j_0`$. Then we put for arbitrary $`q_0`$ :

$$A_q()=\{\phi (x)𝒟():_{}x^j\phi (x)𝑑x=\delta _{0j},j=0,1,\mathrm{},q\}.$$

Denote also $`\phi _\epsilon =\epsilon ^1\phi (\epsilon ^1x)`$ for $`\phi A_q(),\epsilon >0`$, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi }(x)=\phi (x)`$. Now, let $`[]`$ be the algebra of functions $`f(\phi ,x):A_0()\times `$ that are infinitely differentiable, by a fixed ‘parameter’ $`\phi `$. Then, the generalized functions of Colombeau are elements of the quotient algebra

$$𝒢𝒢()=_\mathrm{M}[]/[].$$

Here $`_\mathrm{M}[]`$ is the subalgebra of ‘moderate’ functions such that for each compact subset $`K`$ of $``$ and $`p`$ there is a $`q`$ such that, for each $`\phi A_q()`$,

$$\underset{xK}{sup}|^pf(\phi _\epsilon ,x)|=O(\epsilon ^q),\text{ as}\epsilon 0_+.$$

The ideal $`[]`$ of $`_\mathrm{M}[]`$ consists of all functions such that for each compact $`K`$ and any $`p`$ there is a $`q`$ such that, for every $`rq`$ and $`\phi A_r()`$,

$$\underset{xK}{sup}|^pf(\phi _\epsilon ,x)|=O(\epsilon ^{rq}),\text{ as}\epsilon 0_+.$$

The algebra $`𝒢`$ contains the distributions on $``$, canonically embedded as a $``$-vector subspace by the map

$$i:𝒟^{}()𝒢:u\stackrel{~}{u}=\{\stackrel{~}{u}(\phi ,x)=(u\stackrel{ˇ}{\phi })(x):\phi A_q()\}.$$

Definition 2 — A generalized function $`f𝒢`$ is said to admit some $`u𝒟^{}()`$ as ‘associated distribution’, denoted $`fu`$, if for some representative $`f(\phi _\epsilon ,x)`$ of $`f`$ and any $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$ there is a $`q_0`$ such that, for any $`\phi (x)A_q()`$,

$$\underset{\epsilon 0_+}{lim}_{}f(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\psi (x)𝑑x=u,\psi .$$

This definition is independent of the representatives and the association is a faithful generalization of the equality of distributions .

Then, by product of some distributions in the algebra $`𝒢`$, sometimes called ‘Colombeau product’, is meant the product of their embeddings in $`𝒢`$, whenever the result admits an associated distribution.

The following coherence result holds \[9, Proposition 10.3\] : If the regularized model product (in the terminology of Kamiński) of two distributions exists, then their Colombeau product also exists and coincides with the former. On the other hand, in the general setting of Colombeau algebra $`𝒢(^m)`$  (when the parameter functions $`\phi `$ are not defined as tensor products), as well as in the algebra $`𝒢()`$ on the real line, this assertion turns into an equivalence, according to a result by Jelínek ; cf. also a recent study by Boie .

Now, let $`\stackrel{~}{x^p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{(p)}(x)`$ be the embeddings in $`𝒢`$ of the distributions $`x^p`$ and $`\delta ^{(p)}(x),p`$. The following balanced distributional product has been proved in , which generalizes the basic Mikusiński formula (1) for arbitrary $`p,q`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{x^p}.\stackrel{~}{x^q}\pi ^2\frac{(1)^{p+q}}{(p1)!(q1)!}\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{(p1)}(x).\stackrel{~}{\delta }^{(q1)}(x)x^{pq}(x).$$
(2)
We next introduce the following.

Definition 3 — Letting $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{a:a1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, we denote

$$\nu _+^a\nu _+^a(x)=\{\frac{x^a}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)}\text{ if }x>0,=0\text{ if }x<0\}.$$

$$\nu _{}^a\nu _{}^a(x)=\{\frac{(x)^a}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)}\text{ if }x<0,=0\text{ if }x>0\}.$$

Since $`x\nu _\pm ^a(x)`$ is a locally-integrable function for $`a>1`$, we can define the distributions $`\nu _\pm ^a`$, for arbitrary $`a\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by setting

$$\nu _+^a=_x^r\nu _+^{a+r}(x),\nu _{}^a=(1)^r_x^r\nu _{}^{a+r}(x).$$

Here $`r_0`$ is such that $`a+r>1`$ and the derivatives are in distributional sense. Note that, due to the equations $`_x\nu _\pm ^a=\pm \nu _\pm ^{a1}`$ (with no number coefficients), the calculations with these ‘normed’ distributions are made easier.

We shall also make use of the definition and some basic properties of the binomial coefficients. Recall that \[7, § 21.5.1\] if $`x,y`$ and $`n,k`$ then, by definition,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ n\end{array}\right)=\{\frac{x(x1)\mathrm{}(xn+1)}{n!}\text{ if }n>0,=1\text{ if }n=0,=0\text{ if }n<0\}$$

and it holds the following addition formula

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x+y\\ n\end{array}\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\ nk\end{array}\right)(n>0),$$
(3)
as well as the equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ n\end{array}\right)=(1)^n\left(\begin{array}{c}x+n1\\ n\end{array}\right)(x>0).$$
(4)
2. Results on Mikusiński type products of the distributions $`x_\pm ^a`$

###### Theorem 1

$`.`$ For any $`a,b\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`a+b>2`$, the embeddings in $`𝒢`$ of the distributions $`\nu _\pm ^a(x)`$ and $`\delta (x)`$ satisfy

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^b}\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a+b+1}}.\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x)0(x).$$
(5)
Now, we proceed to the singular distribution product $`x_+^a.x_{}^b`$ in the ‘boundary case’ $`a+b=2`$, or else $`b=a2`$. We prove the following.

###### Theorem 2

$`.`$ For any $`a\backslash `$, the embeddings in $`𝒢()`$ of the distributions $`\nu _\pm ^a(x)`$ and $`\delta (x),x`$, satisfy

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a2}}\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x).\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x)\frac{a+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{2}\delta ^{}(x).$$
(6)
Proof : For arbitrary $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$ and $`\phi A_0()`$, we first get on the change $`x/\epsilon =u`$ and applying the Taylor theorem

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\epsilon l}^{\epsilon l}}\phi ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\epsilon }}\right)\psi (x)𝑑x`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (0)}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^2(u)𝑑u\psi ^{}(0){\displaystyle _l^l}u\phi ^2(u)𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).`$
Without lost of generality, it is assumed here that supp $`\phi (x)[l,l]`$ for some $`l_+`$; then $`lx/\epsilon l`$ implies $`l\epsilon xl\epsilon `$.

Suppose now that $`r`$ is subject to the condition $`r>\mathrm{max}\{a+1,a1\}`$. Then, Definition 3, the derivative in Colombeau algebra, and the substitution $`u=(yx)/\epsilon `$ give for the embeddings in $`𝒢()`$ :

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)=\frac{(1)^r\epsilon ^r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r+1)}_{x/\epsilon }^l(x+\epsilon u)^{a+r}\phi ^{(r)}(u)𝑑u;$$
(8)
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a2}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)=\frac{\epsilon ^r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r1)}_l^{x/\epsilon }(x\epsilon v)^{a+r2}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v.$$

For arbitrary $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$, denote the functional

$$F=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\nu _{}^{a2}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)\text{and}G=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r1)F.$$

Then, we obtain on the substitution $`w=x/\epsilon `$ :

$$G=\frac{(1)^r}{\epsilon }_l^l\psi (\epsilon w)_w^l\phi ^{(r)}(u)_l^w(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+r2}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u𝑑w.$$

Employing now Taylor theorem and changing twice the order of integration – which is permissible here – we get

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r\psi (0)}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}\phi ^{(r)}(v){\displaystyle _v^u}(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+r2}𝑑w𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`(1)^r\psi ^{}(0){\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}\phi ^{(r)}(v){\displaystyle _v^u}w(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+r2}𝑑w𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`+O(\epsilon ).`$
The substitution $`wt=(wv)/(uv)`$, together with the relations $`wv=(uv)t,uw=(uv)(1t)`$, gives for the main part $`G^{}`$ of this expansion

$`G^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r\psi (0)}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{2r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^1}(1t)^{a+r}t^{a+r2}𝑑t`$
$`(1)^r\psi ^{}(0){\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{2r}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^1}(1t)^{a+r}t^{a+r1}𝑑t`$
$`(1)^r\psi ^{}(0){\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}v(uv)^{2r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^1}(1t)^{a+r}t^{a+r2}𝑑t.`$
By the definition of first-order Euler integral,

$$_0^1(1t)^at^b𝑑t=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b+2)}(a,b>1).$$
(9)
Taking into account this, we obtain

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r\psi (0)}{\epsilon (2r1)!}}r!{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{2r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r(a+r1)\psi ^{}(0)}{(2r)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{2r}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r\psi ^{}(0)}{(2r1)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}v(uv)^{2r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).`$
Recall that, according to the Leibnitz rule, the following formula for differentiation of integrals holds \[7, § 6.4.1\] :

$$_u\left(_l^uT(u,v)𝑑v\right)=_l^u_u\left(T(u,v)\right)dv+T(u,v)|_{v=u}.$$
(10)
Now, an $`r`$-time integration by parts in the variable $`u`$ – the integrated parts being zero each time – and equation (10), with $`T(u,v)|_{v=u}=0`$ in this case, yield further

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (0)}{\epsilon (r1)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(a+r1)\psi ^{}(0)}{(r)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^r\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}(0)}{(r1)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}v(uv)^{r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).`$
Replacing $`v`$ by $`u(uv)`$ in the last term, combining the summands, and integrating by parts in the variable $`v`$, we get

$$F=\frac{\psi (0)}{\epsilon }_l^l\phi ^2(u)𝑑u\psi ^{}(0)_l^lu\phi ^2(u)𝑑u+\frac{(a+1)}{2}\psi ^{}(0)+O(\epsilon ).$$
(11)
Taking into account equations (7) and (11), as well as linearity of the functional, we finally obtain

$$\underset{\epsilon 0_+}{lim}[\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a2}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x)],\psi (x)=\frac{a+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{2}\delta ^{},\psi .$$

This proves equation (6), according to Definition 2.

Remark — In the notation $`x_\pm ^a`$, equation (6) takes the following more complex form

$$\stackrel{~}{x_+^a}.\stackrel{~}{x_{}^{a2}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(a1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x).\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1a)}{2}\delta ^{}(x)$$

or else,

$$\stackrel{~}{x_+^a}.\stackrel{~}{x_{}^{a2}}+\frac{\pi }{(a1)\mathrm{sin}\pi a}\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x).\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x)\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{sin}\pi a}\delta ^{}(x).$$
(12)
Next we proceed one step further, dealing with the product $`\nu _+^a.\nu _{}^b`$ in the singular case $`a+b=3`$, or otherwise $`b=a3`$.

###### Theorem 3

$`.`$ For any $`a\backslash `$, the embeddings in $`𝒢()`$ of the distributions $`\nu _\pm ^a(x)`$ and $`\delta (x),x`$, satisfy

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a3}}+(2a+3)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x).\stackrel{~}{\delta ^{}}(x)\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+2\\ 2\end{array}\right)\delta ^{\prime \prime }(x).$$
(13)
Proof : For arbitrary $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$ and $`\phi A_0()`$, we get on the change $`x/\epsilon =u`$ and Taylor theorem

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\delta ^{}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^3}}{\displaystyle _{\epsilon l}^{\epsilon l}}\phi \left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\epsilon }}\right)\phi ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\epsilon }}\right)\psi (x)𝑑x`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}(0)}{2\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^2(u)𝑑u+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2}}{\displaystyle _l^l}u\phi ^2(u)𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).`$
If $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$, denote the functional

$$F=\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a3}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)\text{and}G=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r2)F.$$

Suppose that $`r`$ is subject to the condition $`r>\mathrm{max}\{a+2,a1,1\}`$. Then we obtain on the substitution $`w=x/\epsilon `$ :

$$G=\frac{(1)^r}{\epsilon ^2}_l^l\psi (\epsilon w)_w^l\phi ^{(r)}(u)_l^w(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+r3}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u𝑑w.$$

Employing Taylor theorem and changing twice the order of integration, we get

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^r{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{(n)}(0)}{n!\epsilon ^{2n}}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}\phi ^{(r)}(v){\displaystyle _v^u}w^n(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+r3}𝑑w𝑑v𝑑u+O(\epsilon )`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r2)\left[F_1+F_2+F_3\right]+O(\epsilon ).`$
Further, the substitution $`wt=(wv)/(uv)`$, equation (9), and $`r`$-time integration by parts in the variable $`u`$ by equation (10), when applied successively to the terms $`F_j,j=1,2,3`$, will all yield :

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r\psi (0)}{\epsilon ^2(2r2)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{2r2}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (0)}{\epsilon ^2(r2)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{r2}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (0)}{\epsilon ^2}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u)\phi ^{}(u)𝑑u={\displaystyle \frac{\psi (0)}{\epsilon ^2}}\phi ^2(u)|_l^l=0.`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a+r2)\psi ^{}(0)}{\epsilon (r1)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}(0)}{\epsilon (r2)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}v(uv)^{r2}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u.`$
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a+r2)(a+r1)\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2r!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^r\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a+r2)\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{(r1)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}v(uv)^{r1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2(r2)!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}v^2(uv)^{r2}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u.`$
Replacing $`v=u(uv)`$, combining the summands, and integrating by parts in the variable $`v`$, we get

$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`(2a+3){\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}(0)}{2\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^2(u)𝑑u.`$
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+2\\ 2\end{array}\right)\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)(2a+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}){\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2}}{\displaystyle _l^l}u\phi ^2(u)𝑑u.`$
Taking now account of equation (14), we obtain for $`F=_{j=1}^{3}F_j+O(\epsilon )`$

$$F(\epsilon )=(2a\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x).\stackrel{~}{\delta ^{}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+2\\ 2\end{array}\right)\delta ^{\prime \prime }(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)+O(\epsilon ).$$

Then, in view of linearity of the functional, we finally obtain

$$\underset{\epsilon 0_+}{lim}[\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a3}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)+(2a+3)\stackrel{~}{\delta }(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\delta ^{}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)],\psi =\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+2\\ 2\end{array}\right)\delta ^{\prime \prime }(x),\psi .$$

By Definition 2, this proves equation (13).

Direct consequences from the results of Theorems 2–3 are given by this.

###### Corollary 1

$`.`$ For arbitrary $`a\backslash `$, the following M-type products hold for the embeddings in $`𝒢()`$ of the distributions $`\nu _\pm ^a(x),x`$ :

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a2}}+\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^{a2}}(a+1)\delta ^{}(x).$$
(16)
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{a3}}+\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^{a3}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+2\\ 2\end{array}\right)\delta ^{\prime \prime }(x)$$
(17)
Proof : Replacing $`x`$ by $`x`$ in equation (6) and subtracting the latter equation from the result, we get (16). Equation (17) is obtained if we replace $`x`$ by $`x`$ in equation (13) and then add the result to the latter equation.

Further extension of the results of Theorems 2–3 on the products $`\nu _+^a.\nu _{}^b`$ to the cases $`a+b=4,\mathrm{},p`$ for arbitrary $`p`$ is also possible (though more difficult) to prove, but the results are not Mikusiński type products : one gets for the balancing term not single product any more but a sum of such products.

Nevertheless, equations (16) and (17) can be extended to the general case $`a+b=p`$ for any natural $`p`$. More exactly, it holds the following.

###### Theorem 4

$`.`$ For arbitrary $`a\backslash `$ and $`p`$, the embeddings in $`𝒢()`$ of the distributions $`\nu _\pm ^a(x),x`$, satisfy

$$(1)^p\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{ap1}}+\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^a}.\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^{ap1}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+p\\ p\end{array}\right)\delta ^{(p)}(x).$$
(18)
Proof : (i) Choosing an $`r`$ such that $`r>\mathrm{max}\{a+p,a1,p1\}`$, we denote for arbitrary $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$ and $`\phi A_0()`$

$$F_1=\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{ap1}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)\text{and}G=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+r+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+rp)F_1.$$

Taking account of representation (8), we get on the the substitution $`w=x/\epsilon `$ :

$$G=\frac{(1)^r}{\epsilon ^p}_l^l\psi (\epsilon w)_w^l\phi ^{(r)}(u)_l^w(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+rp1}\phi ^{(r)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u𝑑w.$$

The Taylor theorem, with the short-hand notation $`\psi _0^n=\psi ^{(n)}(0)`$, and change of the order of integration, according to Dirichlet formula, now give

$`G={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{r+n}\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}n!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}`$ $`\phi ^{(r)}(u)`$ $`{\displaystyle _l^u}\phi ^{(r)}(v){\displaystyle _v^u}w^n(uw)^{a+r}(wv)^{a+rp1}𝑑w𝑑v𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).`$
Further, the substitution $`wt=(wv)/(uv)`$, together with of the equation $`w^n`$ $`=_{k=0}^n\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}\right)(uv)^kt^kv^{nk}`$, yields

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{r+n}\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}n!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}\phi ^{(r)}(u){\displaystyle _l^u}\phi ^{(r)}(v)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}\right)(uv)^{2rp+k}v^{nk}dvdu{\displaystyle _0^1}(1t)^{a+r}t^{a+rp+k1}dt+O(\epsilon ).`$
Taking into account equation (9) and putting $`q=rp_0`$, by the above choice of $`r`$, we obtain for the main part $`F_1^{}`$ of the asymptotic expansion of $`F_1`$ :

$$F_1^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^{r+n+k}\psi _0^n\left(\begin{array}{c}aq\\ k\end{array}\right)}{\epsilon ^{pn}(r+q+k)!(nk)!}_l^l\phi ^{(r)}(u)_l^u\phi ^{(r)}(v)(uv)^{r+q+k}v^{nk}𝑑v𝑑u.$$

We have used here that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+q+k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+q)k!}=(1)^k\left(\begin{array}{c}aq\\ k\end{array}\right).$$

Now, a multiple integration by parts in the variables $`u`$ and $`v`$ – each integrated term being zero – and equation (10), with $`T(u,v)|_{v=u}=0`$ in this particular case, will all give

$$F_1^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^{n+k}\psi _0^n\left(\begin{array}{c}aq\\ k\end{array}\right)}{\epsilon ^{pn}(q+k)!(nk)!}_l^l\phi (u)_l^u\phi ^{(p+q)}(v)(uv)^{q+k}v^{nk}𝑑v𝑑u.$$

Replacing $`v=u(uv)`$ and $`v^{nk}=_{j=0}^{nk}(1)^j\left(\begin{array}{c}nk\\ j\end{array}\right)u^{nkj}(uv)^j`$, we get

$`F_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{nk}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n+k+j}\psi _0^n\left(\begin{array}{c}aq\\ k\end{array}\right)}{\epsilon ^{pn}(nkj)!(q+k)!j!}}{\displaystyle _l^l}u^{nkj}\phi (u){\displaystyle _l^u}(uv)^{q+k+j}\phi ^{(pkj)}(v)𝑑v𝑑u.`$
We next put $`t=k+j`$, integrate $`q+t+1`$ times by parts the integral in $`v`$, and change the order of summation, obtaining

$$F_1^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{t=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^{n+t}\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}(nt)!}\underset{k=0}{\overset{t}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}aq\\ k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q+t\\ tk\end{array}\right)_l^lu^{nt}\phi (u)\phi ^{(pt1)}(u)𝑑u.$$

Below, we shall use the short-hand notation

$$I_{n,t}:=_l^lu^{\{nt\}}\phi (u)\phi ^{(pt1)}(u)𝑑u,\text{ where }u^{\{k\}}=u^k/k!\text{ and }k_0,$$

noting that $`_uu^{\{k\}}=u^{\{k1\}}`$. Then, equations (3) and (4) for binomial coefficients give

$$F_1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{(1)^n\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}}\underset{t=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ t\end{array}\right)_l^lu^{\{nt\}}\phi (u)\phi ^{(pt1)}(u)𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).$$
(21)
(ii) On the other hand, for arbitrary $`\psi (x)𝒟()`$, denoting

$$F_2=\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^{ap1}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x),\psi (x)$$

and proceeding similarly to the above calculations, we obtain for the main part of the latter functional

$$F_2^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^{n+k+1}\psi _0^n\left(\begin{array}{c}ar1\\ k\end{array}\right)}{\epsilon ^{pn}(q+k)!(nk)!}_l^l\phi (u)_u^l\phi ^{(p+q)}(v)(uv)^{q+k}v^{nk}𝑑v𝑑u.$$

The replacements $`v=u(uv)`$ and $`t=k+j`$, integration $`q+t+1`$ times by parts in the variable $`v`$, and change of the order of summation now give

$$F_2^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{t=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^{n+t}\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{t}{}}(\begin{array}{c}apq1\\ k\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}q+t\\ tk\end{array})_l^lu^{\{nt\}}\phi (u)\phi ^{(pt1)}(u)𝑑u.$$

Applying again equations (3) and (4) to the binomial coefficients, we finally get

$$F_2=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{(1)^n\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}}\underset{t=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+p\\ t\end{array}\right)_l^lu^{\{nt\}}\phi (u)\phi ^{(pt1)}(u)𝑑u+O(\epsilon ).$$
(22)
(iii) Next, we represent each of the functionals $`F_i,i=1,2`$ in the form

$$F_i=\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{(1)^n\psi _0^n}{\epsilon ^{pn}}S_i(n)+R_i+O(\epsilon ),\text{where}R_i:=F_i|_{n=t=p},i=1,2.$$
(23)
Then, from equations (21) and (22) and taking into account that, by Definition 1, the parameter functions satisfy

$$_1^l\phi (u)\phi ^{(1)}(u)𝑑u_1^l\phi (u)_l^u\phi (u)𝑑v𝑑u=\frac{1}{2}\left(_l^u\phi (v)𝑑v\right)^2|_l^l=\frac{1}{2},$$

we obtain

$$R_1=\frac{(1)^p\psi _0^p}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ p\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ p\end{array}\right)\delta ^{(p)}(x),\psi (x).$$

$$R_2=\frac{(1)^p\psi _0^p}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+p\\ p\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}a+p\\ p\end{array}\right)\delta ^{(p)}(x),\psi (x).$$

Applying now equation (4), we get

$$(1)^pR_1+R_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}a+p\\ p\end{array}\right)\delta ^{(p)}(x),\psi (x).$$
(24)
(iv) It remains to prove that, for each $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},p(tp1`$ if $`n=p)`$, the following equation holds

$$(1)^pS_1(n)+S_2(n)=0.$$
(25)
To check this, we will distinguish between the cases when $`p`$ takes even and odd values, denoting them by $`p=2h`$ and $`p=2h+1`$ for some $`h_0`$. The case $`n=0`$ is trivial. Passing to $`n=1`$, we first calculate the integrals involved. If $`p=2h`$, we obtain on $`h1`$ times integration by parts :

$$I_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}=(1)^{h1}\left(\frac{1}{2}h\right)_l^l\left(\phi ^{(h1)}(u)\right)^2𝑑u,I_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=(1)^{h1}_l^l\left(\phi ^{(h1)}(u)\right)^2𝑑u.$$

We therefore have

$$(1)^{2h}S_1(1)+S_2(1)=(1)^{h1}(12ha1+a+2h)_l^l\left(\phi ^{(h1)}(u)\right)^2𝑑u=0.$$

If $`p=2h+1`$, then an $`h`$-time integration by parts gives

$$I_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}=(1)^h_l^lu\left(\phi ^{(h)}(u)\right)^2𝑑u,I_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=0.$$

Hence

$$S_1(1)=(1)^h_l^l\left(\phi ^{(h)}(u)\right)^2𝑑u+0=S_2(1),$$

i.e. $`(1)^{2h+1}S_1(1)+S_2(1)=0`$, and equation (25) follows in the case $`n=1`$.

(v) This line of calculations is applicable for each $`n`$ and we shall perform it in the most complex case $`n=p`$. We compute first the integrals included, omitting some of the intermediate calculations. We make use of the next equation, which is obtained on $`h1`$ times integration by parts and combining the terms

$$I_{p,t}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}(1)^{h1+m}\left(\begin{array}{c}h1\\ m\end{array}\right)_l^lu^{\{ptm\}}\phi ^{(h1m)}(u)\phi ^{(pth)}(u)𝑑u.$$
(26)
Consider now the case $`p=2h`$. Taking account of (26), we integrate further so as to obtain terms of the kind $`u^{\{k\}}\left(\phi ^{(n)}(u)\right)^2𝑑u`$, for some $`k,n_0`$; they will serve as ‘basic elements’. Proceeding this way, we get

$$I_{2h,t}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}C_{h,m}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}mh\\ 2m+1t\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}mh+1\\ 2m+1t\end{array}\right)\right],$$
(27)
where we have denoted

$$C_{h,m}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}\frac{(1)^{h+m}}{2}_l^lu^{\{2h12m\}}\left(\phi ^{(h1m)}\right)^2.$$

Inserting now equation (27) in $`S_1(p)`$ for $`p=2h`$ and changing the order of summation, we get

$$S_1(2h)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}C_{h,m}\underset{t=0}{\overset{2m+1}{}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}mh\\ 2m+1t\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}mh+1\\ 2m+1t\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ t\end{array}\right).$$

Then, the addition formula (3) and equation (4) for binomial coefficients yield

$`S_1(2h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}}C_{h,m}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}mah1\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}mah\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}}(1)^{2m+1}C_{h,m}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}a+h+m+1\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}a+h+m\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)\right].`$
On the other hand, taking into account equations (27) and (3), we obtain

$`S_2(2h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}}C_{h,m}{\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{2m+1}{}}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}mh\\ 2m+1t\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}mh+1\\ 2m+1t\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}a+2h\\ t\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}}C_{h,m}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}a+h+m\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}a+h+m+1\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)\right]=S_1(2h).`$
Thus

$$(1)^{2h}S_1(2h)+S_2(2h)=0.$$

Let further $`p=2h+1`$. Proceeding in a similar way, we obtain

$$I_{2h+1,t}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}C_{h,m}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}mh\\ 2mt\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}mh+1\\ 2mt\end{array}\right)\right].$$
(32)
Note that the ‘basic elements’ included in $`C_{h,m}`$ coincide exactly with those in the case of even $`p`$. Then, we compute

$`S_1(2h+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}}C_{h,m}{\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{2m}{}}}[\left(\begin{array}{c}mh\\ 2mt\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}mh+1\\ 2mt\end{array}\right)]\left(\begin{array}{c}a1\\ t\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{h1}{}}}(1)^{2m}C_{h,m}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}a+h+m+1\\ 2m\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}a+h+m\\ 2m+1\end{array}\right)\right]=S_2(2h+1).`$
Therefore

$$(1)^{2h+1}S_1(2h+1)+S_2(2h+1)=0.$$

This completes the proof of equation (25). Now, in view of equations (21) – (25) and linearity of the functional, we can finally write

$`\underset{\epsilon 0_+}{lim}[(1)^p\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^{ap1}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)`$ $`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _{}^a}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)\stackrel{~}{\nu _+^{ap1}}(\phi _\epsilon ,x)],\psi (x)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}a+p\\ p\end{array}\right)\delta ^{(p)},\psi (x).`$
According to Definition 2, this proves the result of Theorem 4.

Bulgarian Acad. Sci., INRNE - Theory Group
72 Tzarigradsko shosse, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria
E-mail: damyanov@netel.bg