text:
# Anisotropic admixture in color-superconducting quark matter

(April 2, 2003)

## Abstract

The analysis of color-superconducting two-flavor deconfined quark matter at moderate densities is extended to include a particular spin-1 Cooper pairing of those quarks which do not participate in the standard spin-0 diquark condensate. (i) The relativistic spin-1 gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ implies spontaneous breakdown of rotation invariance manifested in the form of the quasi-fermion dispersion law. (ii) The critical temperature of the anisotropic component is approximately given by the relation $`T_c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(T=0)/3`$. (iii) For massless fermions the gas of anisotropic Bogolyubov-Valatin quasiquarks becomes effectively gapless and two-dimensional. Consequently, its specific heat depends quadratically on temperature. (iv) All collective Nambu-Goldstone excitations of the anisotropic phase have a linear dispersion law and the whole system remains a superfluid. (v) The system exhibits an electromagnetic Meissner effect.

Recent investigations suggest that the phase structure of QCD is very rich RaWi00 ; Al01 . At low temperatures and high densities strongly interacting matter is expected to be a color superconductor CoPe75 . At asymptotically high densities, where the QCD coupling constant becomes small, this can be analyzed starting from first principles Son99 ; PiRi , whereas at more moderate densities, present (presumably) in the interiors of neutron stars, these methods are no longer justified. In this region the low-energy dynamics of deconfined quark matter is often studied employing effective Lagrangians $`_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ which contain local or non-local four-fermion interactions, most importantly interactions derived from instantons or on a more phenomenological basis RSSV ; ARW98 ; models . The non-confining gluon $`SU(3)_c`$ gauge fields are then treated as weak external perturbations, and neglected in lowest approximation.

In this letter we consider the case of two flavors which is most likely relevant at chemical potentials just above the deconfinement phase transition. On physical grounds it is then natural to assume that $`_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ favors the spontaneous formation of spin-0 isospin singlet Cooper pair condensates BaLo84 ; RaWi00  $`\delta =\psi ^TC\gamma _5\tau _2\lambda _2\psi ,`$ where $`\psi `$ is a quark field, $`C`$ the matrix of charge conjugation, $`\tau _2`$ a Pauli matrix which acts in flavor space, and $`\lambda _2`$ a Gell-Mann matrix which acts in color space. Due to the latter $`SU(3)_c`$ is broken down to $`SU(2)_c`$. This has the following consequences for the physical excitations of the system:

(i) Corresponding to the mixing of the colors 1 and 2 there are two Bogolyubov-Valatin quasiquarks for each flavor with the dispersion law $`E_1^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=E_2^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})E^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{(ϵ_p\pm \mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}.`$ The energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the solution of a selfconsistent gap equation and is found to be typically of the order $`100`$ MeV in model calculations ARW98 ; RSSV ; models . $`ϵ_p=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+M^2}`$, where $`M`$ is an effective Dirac mass, related to the chiral condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ via a selfconsistency equation models . For each flavor there is an unpaired quark of color 3 with the dispersion law $`ϵ_3^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=ϵ_p\pm \mu `$.

(ii) Because of the spontaneous breaking of $`SU(3)_c`$ down to $`SU(2)_c`$ five of the eight gluons receive a mass (Meissner effect), whereas three remain massless RiCD00 . Since no global symmetry is spontaneously broken there are no massless Goldstone bosons.

(iii) The condensate $`\delta `$ is invariant under a local $`U(1)`$ transformation generated by $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\lambda _8`$, where $`Q`$ is the electromagnetic charge operator and $`\lambda _8`$ a Gell-Mann matrix in color space. As long as this symmetry is not broken by other condensates, there is a “new” photon (a linear combination of the “normal” photon and the eighth gluon) which remains massless. This means, there is no electromagnetic Meissner effect.

According to Cooper’s theorem any attractive interaction leads to an instability at the Fermi surface. It is therefore rather unlikely, that the Fermi sea of color-3 quarks stays intact. As only quarks of a single color are involved, the pairing must take place in a channel which is symmetric in color. Assuming $`s`$-wave condensation in an isospin-singlet channel, a possible candidate is a spin-1 condensate ARW98 . Although the size of the corresponding gap was estimated to be much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ARW98 , its existence can have important astrophysical consequences. For example, if all quarks are gapped, the specific heat of a potential quark core of a neutron star (and hence the cooling of the star) is goverened by the size of the smallest gap RaWi00 . The same is true for other transport properties, like neutrino emissivity or viscosity.

This letter is devoted to a quantitative analysis of this possibility. To this end we consider the condensate

$$\delta ^{}=\psi ^TC\sigma ^{03}\tau _2\widehat{P}_3^{(c)}\psi ,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=i/2[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$ and $`\widehat{P}_3^{(c)}=1/31/\sqrt{3}\lambda _8`$ is the projector on color 3. $`\delta ^{}`$ is a ground-state expectation value of a complex vector order parameter $`\varphi ^{0n}\varphi _n`$ describing spin 1 and breaking spontaneously the rotational invariance of the system. There are well-known examples for spin-1 pairing in condensed matter physics, e.g., superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, where some phases are also anisotropic He3 . In relativistic systems this is certainly not a very frequent phenomenon. It is possible only at finite chemical potential, which itself breaks Lorentz invariance explicitly. (Relativistic Cooper pairing into spin-1 with nonzero angular momentum was considered elsewhere, e.g., BaLo84 ; Sch00 .) Another example of non-isotropic quark pairing are crystalline color superconductors crystal . The role of spin-1 condensates as an alternative to crystals in single color or single flavor systems has also been discussed in Ref. ABCC02 .

Since rotational invariance is a global symmetry of the primary Lagrangian, an arbitrary small gap of the anisotropic phase implies specific gapless collective excitations with given Landau critical velocity crucial for the superfluid behavior of the system. We will briefly discuss this at the end of this Letter. It is also interesting to note that $`\delta ^{}`$ is not neutral with respect to the “rotated” electric charge $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ and there is no generalized electric charge for which both, $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$, are neutral. This means, if both, $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$, were present in a neutron star, there would be an electromagnetic Meissner effect, which would strongly influence the magnetic field. Recently, similar effects have been discussed in Ref. SWR03 . The detailed evaluation of the Meissner masses for our case remains to be done.

For the quantitative analysis we have to specify the interaction. Guided by the structure of instanton-induced interactions (see, e.g., RSSV ) we consider a quark-antiquark term

$$_{q\overline{q}}=G\left\{(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\psi )^2+(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi )^2\right\}$$
(2)
and a quark-quark term

$`_{qq}=`$ $`H_s{\displaystyle \underset{𝒪=\gamma _5,1}{}}(\overline{\psi }𝒪C\tau _2\lambda _A\overline{\psi }^T)(\psi ^TC𝒪\tau _2\lambda _A\psi ^T)`$
$`H_t(\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }C\tau _2\lambda _S\overline{\psi }^T)(\psi ^TC\sigma _{\mu \nu }\tau _2\lambda _S\psi ^T),`$ (3)
where $`\lambda _A`$ and $`\lambda _S`$ are the antisymmetric and symmetric color generators, respectively. For instanton induced interactions the coupling constants fulfill the relation $`G:H_s:H_t=1:\frac{3}{4}:\frac{3}{16}`$, but for the moment we will treat them as arbitrary parameters. As long as they stay positive, the interaction is attractive in the channels giving rise to the diquark condensates $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ as well as to the chiral condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$. It is straight forward to calculate the mean-field thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,\mu )`$ in the presence of these condensates:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,\mu )=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{+}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\left[\frac{E_i^\pm }{2}+T\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{E_i^\pm /T}\right)\right]}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4G}}(Mm)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4H_s}}|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16H_t}}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|^2,`$ (4)
where $`m`$ is the bare quark mass, $`M=m2G\overline{\psi }\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2H_s\delta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=4H_t\delta ^{}`$. The dispersion law for quarks of color 3 reads

$$E_3^{}(\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{(\sqrt{M_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^2+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\mu _{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}})^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^{}|^2},$$
(5)
where $`\mu _{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^2=\mu ^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`M_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=M\mu /\mu _{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^{}|^2=|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +M^2/\mu _{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).`$ Here $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =p_3/|\stackrel{}{p}|`$. Thus, as expected, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}0`$, $`E_3^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})`$ is an anisotropic function of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, clearly exhibiting the spontaneous breakdown of rotational invariance. For $`M=0`$, the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^{}`$ vanishes at $`\theta =\pi /2`$. In general its minimal value is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}=M|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|/\sqrt{\mu ^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|^2}`$ . Expanding $`E_3^{}`$ around its minimum the low-lying quasiparticle spectrum takes the form

$$E_3^{}(p_{},p_3)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2+v_{}^2(p_{}p_0)^2+v_3^2p_3^2},$$
(6)
where $`v_{}=(1(\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}/(M\mathrm{\Delta }^2))^2)^{1/2},v_3=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}{M},p_0=\frac{v_{}}{v_3}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|,`$ and $`p_{}^2=p_1^2+p_2^2`$. This leads to a density of states linear in energy:

$$N(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mu ^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|}E\theta (E\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}).$$
(7)
The actual values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`M`$ follow from the condition that the stable solutions correspond to the absolute minimum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to these quantities. Imposing $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=0`$ leads to the following gap equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=16H_t\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\underset{+}{}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}(1\pm \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{s})\frac{1}{E_3^\pm }\mathrm{tanh}\frac{E_3^\pm }{2T},$$
(8)
where $`s=\mu _{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}(\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+M_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}^2)^{1/2}`$. Similarly one can derive gap equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`M`$ by the requirements $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/M=0`$, respectively. Together with Eq. (8), they form a set of three coupled equations, which have to be solved simultaneously. However, the equations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are not directly coupled, but only through their dependence on $`M`$.

In our numerical calculations we use a sharp 3-momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to regularize the integrals. We then have five parameters: $`m`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`G`$, $`H_s`$, and $`H_t`$. We choose $`m=`$ 5 MeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=600`$ MeV, and $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=2.4`$ – leading to reasonable vacuum properties, $`M=393`$ MeV and $`\overline{u}u=(244\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^3`$ –, and the instanton relation to fix $`H_s`$ and $`H_t`$ (”parameter set 1”). The resulting values of $`M`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ as functions of $`\mu `$ at $`T`$ = 0 are displayed in Fig. 1. The chemical potentials correspond to baryon densities of about 4 - 7 times nuclear matter density. In agreement with earlier expectations ARW98  $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is small compared with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. However, its value rises strongly with $`\mu `$. Being a solution of a selfconsistency problem, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is also extremely sensitive to the coupling constant $`H_t`$. If we double the value of $`H_t`$ (“parameter set 2”), we arrive at the dashed-dotted line for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, which is then comparable to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As a consequence of the factor $`(1\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/s)`$ in the gap equation (8), $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is very sensitive to value and the form of the cutoff.

With increasing temperature both condensates, $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$, are reduced and eventually vanish in second-order phase transitions at critical temperatures $`T_c`$ and $`T_c^{}`$, respectively. It has been shown PiRi  that $`T_c`$ is approximately given by the well-known BCS relation $`T_c0.57\mathrm{\Delta }`$($`T`$=0). In order to derive a similar relation for $`T_c^{}`$ we inspect the gap equation (8) at $`T`$ = 0 and in the limit $`TT_c^{}`$. Neglecting $`M`$ (since $`M\mu `$ this is valid up to higher orders in $`M^2/\mu ^2`$) and antiparticle contributions one gets

$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}\{`$ $`\left[(1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{s}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_3^{}(\stackrel{}{p})}}\right]_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(T=0)}`$
$``$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mu |\stackrel{}{p}|}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mu |\stackrel{}{p}||}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |\stackrel{}{p}||}{2T_c^{}}}\}0.`$ (9)
Since the integrand is strongly peaked near the Fermi surface, the $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$-integrand must approximately vanish at $`|\stackrel{}{p}|=\mu `$, after the angular integration has been performed. From this condition one finds to lowest order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}/\mu `$: $`T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(T=0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/3.`$ The analogous steps would lead to $`T_c/\mathrm{\Delta }`$($`T`$=0) $`1/2`$ instead of the textbook value of 0.57. This gives a rough idea about the quality of the approximation. Note that there are other examples of diquark condensates, where $`T_c0.57\mathrm{\Delta }`$($`T`$=0) SWR02 . This is also the case for crystalline superconductors BKRS01 .

Numerical results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(T)`$ are shown in Fig. 2. The quantities have been rescaled in order to facilitate a comparison with the above relations for $`T_c`$ and $`T_c^{}`$. Our results are in reasonable agreement with our estimates. These findings turn out to be insensitive to the actual choice of parameters.

The specific heat is given by $`c_v=T^2\mathrm{\Omega }/T^2`$ 111Strictly, $`c_v=(T/V)(S/T)|_{V,N}`$, but the correction term is small FW71 .. For $`TT_c`$ it is completely dominated by quarks of color 3, since the contribution of the first two colors is suppressed by a factor $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{T}}`$. Neglecting the $`T`$-dependence of $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, and employing Eq. (7), one finds

$`c_v`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{}|}}T^2e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}}{T}}\right)^n,`$ (10)
which should be valid for $`TT_c^{}`$. In this regime $`c_v`$ depends quadratically on $`T`$ for $`T\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$, and is exponentially suppressed at lower temperatures.

To test this relation we evaluate $`c_v(T)`$ explicitly using Eq. (4). The results for fixed $`\mu `$ =450 MeV are displayed in Fig. 3. For numerical convenience we choose parameter set 2, leading to a relatively large $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$($`T`$=0) = 30.8 MeV. The critical temperature is $`T_c^{}`$ 0.40 $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$($`T`$=0). For the energy gap we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ = 0.074 $`T_c^{}`$. It turns out that Eq. (10), evaluated with constant values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`M`$, (dashed-dotted) is in almost perfect agreement with the numerical result (solid) up to $`TT_c^{}/2`$. The phase transition, causing the discontinuity of $`c_v`$ at $`T=T_c^{}`$, is of course outside the range of validity of Eq. (10). We also display $`c_v`$ for $`M=0`$ (dashed). Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ vanishes in this case there is no exponential suppression, and $`c_v`$ is proportional to $`T^2`$ down to arbitrarily low $`T`$. However, even when $`M`$ is included, the exponential suppression is partially cancelled by the sum on the r.h.s. of Eq. (10). For comparison we also show $`c_v`$ for a system with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ = 0, which exhibits a linear $`T`$ dependence at low temperatures (dotted).

Our results show that, even though the magnitude of the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is strongly model dependent its relations to the critical temperature and the specific heat are quite robust. Thus, if we had empirical data, e.g., for the specific heat of dense quark matter, they could be used to extract information about the existence and the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. In this context neutron stars and their cooling properties are the natural candidates to look at. In Ref. RaWi00  it was suggested that the exponential suppression of $`c_v`$ related to the potential pairing of quarks of color 3 might have observable consequences for the neutrino emission of a neutron star. This argument has to be somewhat refined since, as seen above, $`c_v(T)`$ first behaves as $`T^2`$ and the exponential suppression sets in only at $`T<\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$. The relevance of $`c_v`$ and the possible effect of diquark condensates on neutron star cooling was also discussed in Ref. neutrino . On the other hand it has recently been argued AR02 , that the constraints imposed by charge and color neutrality might completely prohibit the existence of two-flavor color-superconducting matter in neutron stars.

Because of the spontaneously broken $`U(1)\times O(3)`$ symmetry in Eq. (1), for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}0`$ there should be collective Nambu-Goldstone excitations in the spectrum. However, due to the Lorentz non-invariance of the system there can be subtleties NLSS ; HoOM98 ; MiSh01 . The NG spectrum can be analyzed within an underlying effective Higgs potential

$$V(\varphi )=a^2\varphi _n^{}\varphi _n+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _1(\varphi _n^{}\varphi _n)^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _2\varphi _n^{}\varphi _n^{}\varphi _m\varphi _m,$$
(11)
for the complex order parameter $`\varphi _n`$ HoOM98 , with $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2>0`$ for stability. For $`\lambda _2<0`$ the ground state is characterized by $`\varphi _{vac}^{(1)}=(\frac{a^2}{\lambda _1})^{1/2}(0,0,1)`$ which corresponds to our ansatz Eq. (1) for the BCS-type diquark condensate $`\delta ^{}`$. This solution has the property $`\stackrel{}{S}^2=(\varphi _{vac}^{(1)}\stackrel{}{S}\varphi _{vac}^{(1)})^2=0`$. The spectrum of small oscillations above $`\varphi _{vac}^{(1)}`$ consists of 1+2 NG bosons, all with linear dispersion law: one zero-sound phonon and two spin waves HoOM98 . Implying a finite Landau critical velocity, this fact is crucial for a macroscopic superfluid behavior of the system MiSh01 .

Note that for $`\lambda _2>0`$ there is a different solution $`\varphi _{vac}^{(2)}=(\frac{a^2}{2(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)})^{1/2}(1,i,0)`$ with $`\stackrel{}{S}^2=1`$. In this case the NG spectrum above $`\varphi _{vac}^{(2)}`$ consists of one phonon with linear dispersion law and one spin wave whose energy tends to zero with momentum squared HoOM98 . The quasiquark dispersion law corresponding to $`\varphi _{vac}^{(2)}`$ has recently been discussed in Ref. ABCC02 . A detailed analysis of the transport properties implied by this type of pairing seems of particular interest for the phenomenology of neutron stars since the dispersion law allows for gapless excitations even for massive quarks ABCC02 .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank D. Blaschke, D. Litim, K. Rajagopal, I.A. Shovkovy, and E.V. Shuryak for useful discussions. J.H. thanks J. Wambach and IKP TU Darmstadt for generous hospitality and support. We acknowledge financial support by ECT during its 2001 collaboration meeting on color superconductivity. This work was supported in part by grant GACR 202/02/0847. M.O. acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt-foundation.


format: text

text:
# 5𝑛 Minkowski symmetrizations suffice to arrive at an approximate Euclidean ball

## 1 Introduction

Let $`K`$ be a compact convex set in $`^n`$ and let $`u`$ be any vector in $`S^{n1}=\{u;|u|=1\}`$ where $`||`$ denotes the standard Euclidean norm in $`^n`$. Denote by $`\pi _uO(n)`$ the reflection with respect to the hyperplane through the origin orthogonal to $`u`$, i.e. $`\pi _ux=x2x,uu`$.

Minkowski symmetrization (often referred to as Blaschke symmetrization) of $`K`$ with respect to $`u`$ is defined to be the convex set $`\frac{1}{2}(\pi _uK+K)`$. Denote by $`^{}`$ the dual norm to $`K`$ (i.e. $`x^{}=sup_{yK}x,y`$). Despite the fact that $`K`$ is not necessarily centrally symmetric and $`^{}`$ need not be a norm, this convenient notation will be used for readability. Denote by $`M^{}(K)`$ the half mean width of $`K`$, defined as $`M^{}(K):=_{S^{n1}}x^{}𝑑\sigma (x)`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the normalized rotation invariant measure on $`S^{n1}`$, and $`^{}`$ is the dual norm.

It is easily verified that $`M^{}(K)=M^{}(\frac{1}{2}(\pi _uK+K))`$, so the mean width is preserved under Minkowski symmetrizations. Since successive Minkowski symmetrizations make the body more symmetric in some sense, one might expect convergence to a ball of radius $`M^{}(K)`$.

Surprisingly, very few symmetrizations are sufficient for this convergence; In \[BLM\] it is proven that $`cn\mathrm{log}n`$ random symmetrizations suffice to obtain from any convex body, a new body $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, such that $`\frac{1}{2}M^{}D\stackrel{~}{K}2M^{}D`$ with high probability, where $`D=\{u;|u|1\}`$ is the standard Euclidean ball in $`^n`$.

The proof in \[BLM\] can be slightly refined, and rather than an estimate of $`cn\mathrm{log}n`$ for all bodies, in fact $`cn\mathrm{log}\frac{2diam(K)}{M^{}(K)}`$ symmetrizations are enough. This quantity is always smaller then $`cn\mathrm{log}n`$ but in some cases there is a substantial improvement; For example, the $`n`$-dimensional cube needs only $`cn`$ random symmetrizations to be transformed into an almost Euclidean ball.

In \[K\] it was proven that the aforementioned estimate is very tight and is actually a formula, as follows: For every convex body $`K`$ at least $`\stackrel{~}{c}n\mathrm{log}\frac{diam(K)}{2M^{}(K)}`$ random symmetrizations are necessary in order for the body to become close to a Euclidean ball. Hence, bodies such as $`B(l_1^n)`$ \- the $`n`$ dimensional cross polytope - in fact require at least $`cn\mathrm{log}n`$ random symmetrizations.

This paper shows that there exist symmetrizations which are better than random ones. There is a specific choice of $`5n4`$ symmetrizations that transform any convex body into an approximate Euclidean ball. The basic idea underlying the construction is changing the notion of randomness; Rather than symmetrizing with respect to random vectors, symmetrizations with respect to the vectors of a random orthogonal basis will be performed at each iteration.

Six iterations of this kind suffice (totaling $`6n5`$ symmetrizations 111 It seems at first, that six iterations consist of $`6n`$ symmetrizations; However, after the first iteration, the body becomes centrally symmetric. Following that stage, the last vector in each orthogonal basis is unnecessary, because symmetrizing with respect to that vector would not affect the body. ), however the role of each iteration is slightly different. Precisely, for the first iteration any orthogonal basis is adequate. The remaining five iterations are required to be with respect to random independent orthogonal bases, and the results hold with large probability that tends to 1 when the dimension $`n`$ approaches infinity.

There exists a very similar symmetrization process that leads to a slightly better estimate, and consists of $`5n4`$ symmetrizations (only $`4n4`$ symmetrizations, if the body is already unconditional). This process uses symmetrizations with respect to five orthogonal bases, some of which need not be random. An additional basis will be used in this process, and will be referred to here as a Walsh basis. It actually coincides with the regular Walsh basis for dimensions which are powers of two. Let us describe the $`5n4`$ symmetrizations process: The first basis is chosen to be any orthogonal basis, and is used only to create unconditionality. The second basis can be a random basis or a Walsh basis (with respect to the first), and the corresponding symmetrization reduces the diameter of the body to a level of $`\mathrm{log}n`$ times its mean width. The third basis is a Walsh basis with respect to the previous, and reduces the diameter further, to a level of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$ times the mean width. The fourth basis must be, in this proof, a random orthogonal basis and the fifth, either a Walsh basis with respect to the fourth, or a random basis. Once the diameter is small enough, the last two bases together transform the body to an approximate Euclidean ball.

The proof outlined below is mainly concerned with the first process described (which is purely random). Results for the second process are analogous to those of the first, and may be concluded based on remarks throughout the proof.

The symbols $`c,C,c^{},\stackrel{~}{c}`$ denote numerical constants which are not necessarily identical throughout this text.

## 2 First Step: Initial Symmetrizations

Let $`K`$ be an arbitrary convex body in $`^n`$. For the purpose of normalization, assume $`M^{}(K)=1`$. Take any orthogonal basis $`\{e_1,..,e_n\}`$ and symmetrize $`K`$ with respect to the vectors $`e_1,..,e_n`$ to obtain the new body $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$. Since orthogonal reflections commute, $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is invariant under reflection with respect to $`e_i`$, for $`1in`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is unconditional with respect to the basis $`\{e_1,..,e_n\}`$. By Lemma 3.2 from \[K\] there exists a universal constant $`c`$ such that,

$$\stackrel{~}{K}c\sqrt{n}conv\{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^n=c\sqrt{n}B(l_1^n)$$

A specific body will be referred to in this section: $`Q=\sqrt{n}conv\{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^n`$. After a certain symmetrization process its diameter decays from $`\sqrt{n}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{log}n`$ with high probability. Clearly, applying the same set of symmetrizations to $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ will reduce its diameter to less than $`\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{log}n`$.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`\{e_1,..,e_n\}`$ be an orthogonal basis in $`^n`$, and let $`Q=\sqrt{n}conv\{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^n`$. Let $`\mu _n`$ be the unique rotation invariant probability measure on $`O(n)`$. Suppose that $`\{u_1,..,u_n\}O(n)`$ is chosen randomly, according to $`\mu _n`$. After symmetrizing $`Q`$ with respect to $`u_1,..,u_{n1}`$ a new body $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is obtained.
Claim:

$$diam(\stackrel{~}{Q})c\mathrm{log}n$$

with probability greater than $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$.

Remark: The number ‘10’ in the expression $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$ is of course arbitrary, and may be replaced by any other constant. Such a replacement will influence the constant ‘c’ in the concluded inequality “$`diam(\stackrel{~}{Q})c\mathrm{log}n`$”.

###### Corollary 2.2

For every convex body $`K^n`$ with $`M^{}(K)=1`$, there exist $`2n1`$ symmetrizations which transform $`K`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, where $`diam(\stackrel{~}{K})<c\mathrm{log}n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is unconditional with respect to some orthogonal basis.

Following is a simple and well-known lemma. For completeness it will be proven at the end of this section.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be any orthogonal basis, and let $`\{u_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be a random orthogonal basis. Then for all $`1i,jn`$:

$$|u_i,e_j|c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}$$

with probability greater than $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$.

*Proof of Proposition 2.1*: Denote by $``$ the dual norm of $`Q`$ (i.e. $`x=sup_{yQ}x,y=\sqrt{n}\mathrm{max}_i|x,e_i|`$). The dual norm of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is, by definition (recall that the Minkowski sum of bodies is equivalent to the sum of their dual norms):

$$|x|=\frac{1}{2^{n1}}\underset{D\{1,..,n1\}}{}(\underset{iD}{}\pi _{u_i})x=\frac{1}{2^{n1}}\underset{D}{}\sqrt{n}\underset{j}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\underset{iD}{}\pi _{u_i}x,e_j\right|$$

Substitute $`x=_ix,u_iu_i`$. Since reflecting with respect to $`u_i`$ means switching the sign of the $`i^{th}`$ coordinate in $`\{u_1,..,u_n\}`$ basis,

$$|x|=𝔼_\epsilon \underset{j}{\mathrm{max}}|\sqrt{n}\underset{i}{}\epsilon _ix,u_iu_i,e_j|$$

where $`\epsilon =(\epsilon _i)_{i=1}^n`$ is uniformly distributed in $`\{\pm 1\}^n`$. Therefore, $`|x|`$ is the expectation of a maximum of $`n`$ random variables. Denote:

$$f_x^j(\epsilon )=\sqrt{n}|\underset{i}{}\epsilon _ix,u_iu_i,e_j|$$

Then $`|x|=𝔼_\epsilon [\mathrm{max}_jf_x^j(\epsilon )]`$. For $`1\alpha 2`$, and for any measurable $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }`$ define $`f_{\psi _\alpha }=inf\{\lambda >0:_\mathrm{\Omega }e^{|\frac{f}{\lambda }|^\alpha }2\}`$. The equivalent definitions are frequently used:

$$f_{\psi _\alpha }<c(𝔼|f|^p)^{\frac{1}{p}}<c^{}p^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}Prob\{|f|>t\}<e^{c^{\prime \prime }t^\alpha }$$

Khinchine inequality shows that the $`\psi _2`$ norm of $`f_x^j`$ is bounded, as follows:

$$f_x^j_p=\left(𝔼_\epsilon \left|\sqrt{n}\underset{i}{}\epsilon _ix,u_iu_i,e_j\right|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}c\sqrt{p}\sqrt{n}\sqrt{\underset{i}{}(x,u_iu_i,e_j)^2}$$

By Lemma 2.3 with large probability, $`|u_i,e_j|c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$. Hence, with high probability,

$$f_x^j_pc\sqrt{p}\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}|x|f_x^j_{\psi _2}c^{}\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}|x|$$

Since $`|x|=𝔼_\epsilon [\mathrm{max}_jf_x^j(\epsilon )]`$, the well-known estimate for the expectation of a maximum of $`\psi _2`$ variables can be used (e.g. \[LT\] page 79, or the remark after lemma 3.4 in this paper):

$$x^n|x|c\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}(c^{}\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}|x|)=c\mathrm{log}n|x|$$

Thus the proposition is proven. $`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark*: For every dimension, there exists an orthogonal basis $`\{u_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ such that $`i,j`$:

$$|u_i,e_j|\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}$$

Such a basis is called in this paper a “Walsh” basis. Indeed, for dimension $`n=2^k`$, the regular Walsh basis is satisfactory, while for other dimensions, an appropriate basis may be constructed using sines and cosines (this basis consists of orthogonal vectors resembling the complex valued characters of the group $`/n`$). Instead of using Lemma 2.3 in the proof of Proposition 2.1, one can replace the random basis with a Walsh basis, obtaining yet a slightly better result, with “$`\mathrm{log}n`$” replaced by “$`\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}`$” in the conclusion of Proposition 2.1.

*Proof of Lemma 2.3:* Since for every $`i`$ the vector $`u_i`$ distributes uniformly over the sphere, by the standard concentration inequality on the sphere (e.g. first pages of \[MS\]):

$$Prob\{|u_i,e_j|>\epsilon \}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}e^{\frac{\epsilon ^2n}{2}}$$
(1)
Select $`c_1`$ (i.e. $`c_1=5`$) such that for $`\epsilon =c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$, the probability in (1) is less than $`\frac{1}{n^{12}}`$. Therefore, the probability that $`|u_i,e_j|<c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$ holds for all $`1i,jn`$ is greater than $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Second Step: Logarithmic Decay of the Diameter

In the second step, symmetrizations will be performed with respect to two random orthogonal bases; This section proves that this step reduces the diameter of the body logarithmically: from $`c\mathrm{log}n`$ to $`C\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$, with probability close to $`1`$. Therefore, after the second step (and a total of $`4n`$ symmetrizations) the diameter is less than $`C\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$. This proof extends that of the former section.

Let $`K`$ be the convex body obtained from the first step of symmetrizations. According to Corollary 2.2, $`M^{}(K)=1`$, $`diam(K)<c\mathrm{log}n`$, and $`K`$ is unconditional with respect to some orthogonal basis (re-denote this basis as $`\{e_1,..,e_n\}`$). Once again, by Lemma 3.2 from \[K\],

$$Kc\sqrt{n}conv\{\pm e_i\}_{i=1}^n=c\sqrt{n}B(l_1^n)$$

Set $`t=diam(K)<c\mathrm{log}n`$. Clearly, $`K\sqrt{n}B(l_1^n)tB(l_2^n)`$. As in the first step, rather than working directly with the body $`K`$, symmetrize $`K_t=\sqrt{n}B(l_1^n)tB(l_2^n)`$.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`K_t=\sqrt{n}B(l_1^n)tB(l_2^n)`$. Assume that $`\{u_1,..,u_n\}O(n)`$ and $`\{v_1,..,v_n\}O(n)`$ are chosen uniformly and independently. After symmetrizations with respect to $`u_1,..,u_{n1}`$ and $`v_1,..,v_{n1}`$, a new body $`\stackrel{~}{K_t}`$ is obtained such that:

$$\stackrel{~}{K_t}C\mathrm{log}tB(l_2^n)$$

with probability greater than $`1e^{c\sqrt{n}}`$ of choosing the orthogonal bases.

###### Corollary 3.2

For every convex body $`K^n`$ with $`M^{}(K)=1`$, there exist $`4n3`$ symmetrizations which transform $`K`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, where $`diam(\stackrel{~}{K})<c\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$.

Begin by describing the body $`K_t`$ through its dual norm. Denote by $`_t^{}`$ the norm:

$$x_t^{}=inf\{x^{}_2+tx^{\prime \prime }_{\mathrm{}}:x=x^{}+x^{\prime \prime }\}$$

The dual norm of $`K_t`$ is exactly $`t_{\frac{\sqrt{n}}{t}}^{}`$, as can be verified. Put $`(a_i^{})_{i=1}^n`$ for the non-increasing rearrangement of the absolute values of $`(a_i)_{i=1}^n`$. The following two lemmas are well-known. The first lemma essentially appears in \[BL\], but for lack of concise references, attached here are the short elementary proofs.

###### Lemma 3.3

$$x^nx_k^{}\sqrt{\underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}(x_i^{})^2}$$

(and the equivalence constant is not more than $`\sqrt{2}`$).

*Proof:* For $`i`$ where $`|x_i|x_{k^2}^{}`$ set $`x_i^{}=(x_isgn(x_i)x_{k^2}^{})`$. For other $`i`$’s, set $`x_i^{}=0`$. Let $`x^{\prime \prime }=xx^{}`$. Then:

$`x_k^{}x^{}_2+kx^{\prime \prime }_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}}(x_i^{}x_{k^2}^{})^2}+kx_{k^2}^{}`$
$`\sqrt{2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}}\left[(x_i^{}x_{k^2}^{})^2+(x_{k^2}^{})^2\right]}`$
$`\sqrt{2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}}(x_i^{})^2}`$
On the other hand, assume $`x=x^{}+x^{\prime \prime }`$. Surely $`x_i^{}x_i^{}+x_1^{\prime \prime }`$, so:

$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}}(x_i^{})^2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}}(x_i^{})^2}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k^2}{}}}(x_1^{\prime \prime })^2}`$
$`x^{}_2+kx^{\prime \prime }_{\mathrm{}}`$
###### Lemma 3.4

Let $`(X_i)_{i=1}^n`$ be $`\psi _1`$ random variables (i.e. random variables that satisfy: $`𝔼e^{|X_i|}C`$), and let $`(X_i^{})_{i=1}^n`$ be the non-increasing rearrangement of the $`X_i`$’s. Then:

$$𝔼\sqrt{\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(X_i^{})^2}c_2\mathrm{log}\frac{2n}{k}$$

*Proof:* Since the $`X_i`$’s are $`\psi _1`$ variables,

$$𝔼\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}e^{X_i^{}}𝔼\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{|X_i|}C\frac{n}{k}$$
(2)
Let $`(a_i)_{i=1}^k`$ be any real numbers such that $`ia_i1`$. Since the function $`e^\sqrt{x}`$ is convex on $`[1,\mathrm{})`$, by Jensen inequality:

$$e^{\sqrt{\frac{1}{k}_{i=1}^k(a_i)^2}}\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}e^{a_i}$$
(3)
Replace $`X_i^{}`$ by $`max(X_i^{},1)`$, and combine inequalities (2) and (3):

$$𝔼e^{\sqrt{\frac{1}{k}_{i=1}^k(X_i^{})^2}}𝔼\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}e^{X_i^{}+1}C^{}\frac{n}{k}$$

Another application of Jensen inequality ($`𝔼\mathrm{log}X\mathrm{log}𝔼X`$) yields:

$$𝔼\sqrt{\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(X_i^{})^2}\mathrm{log}C^{}\frac{n}{k}$$

which concludes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark:* If $`X_i`$ are $`\psi _2`$ variables, then it can be simply verified that:

$$𝔼\sqrt{\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(X_i^{})^2}c\sqrt{\mathrm{log}\frac{2n}{k}}$$

*Proof of Proposition 3.1:* Let $`x=tx_{\frac{\sqrt{n}}{t}}^{}`$, the dual norm of $`K_t`$. Take two random bases $`\{u_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ and $`\{v_i\}_{i=1}^n`$. The symmetrized norm $`||`$ is:

$$|x|=𝔼_{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}\underset{j,k}{}\epsilon _j\epsilon _k^{}x,v_jv_j,u_ku_k$$

where $`\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}`$ are independent and uniformly distributed in $`\{\pm 1\}^n`$. For $`1in`$ and $`\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}\{\pm 1\}^n`$ define:

$$\varphi _x^i(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})=|\underset{j,k}{}\epsilon _j\epsilon _k^{}x,v_jv_j,u_ku_k,e_i|$$

Then:

$$|x|=t𝔼_{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}[\varphi _x^1(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}),..,\varphi _x^n(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})_{\frac{\sqrt{n}}{t}}^{}]$$

By Lemma 3.3,

$$|x|\sqrt{2}t𝔼_{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}\sqrt{\underset{i=1}{\overset{\frac{n}{t^2}+1}{}}\varphi _x^i(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})^2}$$

The following lemma, estimating the $`\psi _1`$ norm of those variables, will be proved later.

###### Lemma 3.5

$$\varphi _x^i_{\psi _1}<\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{n}}|x|$$

with probability greater than $`1e^{c\sqrt{n}}`$ of choosing the orthogonal bases.

Lemma 3.4 may now be used (for $`k=\frac{n}{t^2}+1`$). It shows that:

$$|x|\sqrt{2}t(\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{n}}|x|)c_2(\frac{\sqrt{n}}{t}+1)\mathrm{log}\frac{2n}{\frac{n}{t^2}}c\mathrm{log}t|x|$$

with probability greater than $`1ne^{c\sqrt{n}}`$ of choosing the bases. $`\mathrm{}`$

Before turning to the proof of lemma 3.5, prove another lemma, which is believed to be known to experts:

###### Lemma 3.6

Let $`x=(x_1,..,x_n)`$ and $`y=(y_1,..,y_n)`$ be two random independent vectors in $`S^{n1}`$. Then with probability greater than $`1e^{c\sqrt{n}}`$,

$$\underset{i}{}x_i^2y_i^2\frac{c}{n}$$

*Proof of Lemma 3.6:* Let $`\{\gamma _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ and $`\{\eta \}_{i=1}^n`$ be independent standard Gaussian variables. Since the measure on the sphere is the radial projection of the standard Gaussian measure in $`^n`$, then:

$$Prob\{\underset{i}{}x_i^2y_i^2>t\}=Prob\{\frac{1}{_j\gamma _j^2_j\eta _j^2}\underset{i}{}\gamma _i^2\eta _i^2>t\}$$

To prove the lemma, it is sufficient to bound from below $`_j\gamma _j^2_j\eta _j^2`$ and bound from above $`_i\gamma _i^2\eta _i^2`$. Begin with the second expression. Note that $`\gamma _i^2\eta _i^2`$ is a $`\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ variable:

$$(𝔼\gamma _i^{2p}\eta _i^{2p})^{\frac{1}{p}}=(𝔼\gamma _i^{2p})^{\frac{4}{2p}}(c\sqrt{p})^4=c^4p^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}$$

for $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$. Therefore, $`_i\gamma _i^2\eta _i^2`$ is a sum of independent copies of a $`\psi _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ random variable. By a deviation inequality for sums of i.i.d $`\psi _\alpha `$ random variables (see \[S\]),

$$Prob\{\underset{i}{}\gamma _i^2\eta _i^2>cn\}<\text{exp}(c^{}\sqrt{n})$$

The fact that $`Prob\{_j\gamma _j^2<\frac{n}{2}\}<e^{cn}`$ follows from Large Deviations technique (e.g. Cramér’s Theorem, \[V\]). To conclude, with probability greater than $`1e^{c\sqrt{n}}`$,

$$\frac{1}{_j\gamma _j^2_j\eta _j^2}\underset{i}{}\gamma _i^2\eta _i^2<\frac{cn}{\frac{n}{2}\frac{n}{2}}=\frac{c^{}}{n}$$

*Proof of Lemma 3.5:* Let $`\varphi _x^i(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})=|_{j,k}\epsilon _j\epsilon _k^{}x,v_jv_j,u_ku_k,e_i|`$. This random variable is a particular case of a Rademacher Chaos variable. It is well known (e.g. see \[LT\]), that a $`\psi _1`$ estimate holds true for such variables:

$$\varphi _x^i_{\psi _1}c\varphi _x^i_2=c\sqrt{\underset{j}{}x,v_j^2\underset{k}{}v_j,u_k^2u_k,e_i^2}$$

It is sufficient to show that the inequality $`_kv_j,u_k^2u_k,e_i^2\frac{c}{n}`$ holds with high probability, since in that case, with the same probability:

$$\sqrt{\underset{j}{}x,v_j^2\underset{k}{}v_j,u_k^2u_k,e_i^2}\frac{\sqrt{c}}{\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{\underset{j}{}x,v_j^2}=\frac{\sqrt{c}}{\sqrt{n}}|x|$$

The fact that $`_kv_j,u_k^2u_k,e_i^2\frac{c}{n}`$ holds with probability greater than $`1e^{c\sqrt{n}}`$ follows directly from Lemma 3.6: Take $`UO(n)`$ such that $`U(u_k)=e_k`$. $`U`$ is distributed uniformly over $`O(n)`$.

$$\underset{k}{}v_j,u_k^2u_k,e_i^2=\underset{k}{}Uv_j,e_k^2e_k,Ue_i^2$$

Since $`Uv_j`$ and $`Ue_i`$ are independent and distributed uniformly over the sphere - the claim is proven, by Lemma 3.6. $`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark*: Proposition 3.1 may be adapted to suit Walsh-type symmetrizations. If $`K_t=\sqrt{n}B(l_1^n)tB(l_2^n)`$ is symmetrized with respect to Walsh vectors $`w_1,..,w_{n1}`$, a slightly better conclusion than that in Proposition 3.1 is obtained; In this setting, it is true that:

$$\stackrel{~}{K_t}C\sqrt{\mathrm{log}t}B(l_2^n)$$

The differences between the proofs are minor. Lemma 3.5 becomes much easier as it follows immediately from Khinchine inequality, even with a $`\psi _2`$ estimate rather than $`\psi _1`$. To take advantage of this improvement, use the remark after Lemma 3.4, to obtain the better conclusion.

Re-iteration of this proposition, where each iteration uses a Walsh basis with respect to the previous, would result in a rapid decay of the body’s diameter. After $`\mathrm{log}^{}n`$ iterations, a body whose $`\frac{diam(\stackrel{~}{K})}{M^{}(\stackrel{~}{K})}`$ ratio is bounded by a universal constant is obtained. Note that this specific choice of symmetrizations decreases the diameter of all possible convex bodies in $`^n`$, to be a constant times their mean width. Of course, once the $`\frac{diam(K)}{M^{}(K)}`$ ratio is bounded, $`cn`$ random independent Minkowski symmetrizations suffice for transforming the body into an approximate Euclidean ball.

## 4 Third step: Concentration Techniques

Take any convex body $`K`$ in $`^n`$. According to Corollary 3.2, from the previous steps (which consist of $`4n`$ symmetrizations) a new body is obtained, with $`M^{}=1`$ and with diameter less than $`c\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$. As before, the third step involves symmetrizing with respect to two random orthogonal bases. A total of $`2n`$ symmetrizations will make the body very close to Euclidean.

Let $``$ be the dual norm of the body obtained after the previous steps. Since $`M^{}(K)=1`$, then $`M()_{S^{n1}}xd\sigma (x)=1`$, and $`b()sup_{xS^{n1}}xc\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$. Let $`\{u_i\}_{i=1}^n,\{v_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be random orthogonal bases and denote for $`x^n`$ a set:

$$(x)=\{\underset{i,j}{}\epsilon _i\epsilon _j^{}x,v_iv_i,u_ju_j:\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}\{\pm 1\}^n\}$$

The symmetrized norm $`||`$ satisfies $`|x|=\frac{1}{4^n}_{v(x)}v`$. This section will prove that for the new norm:

$$x^n\frac{1}{2}|x||x|2|x|$$

with large probability of choosing $`\{u_i\}_{i=1}^n,\{v_i\}_{i=1}^nO(n)`$. In fact, a somewhat stronger theorem is proved, where instead of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`2`$, better estimates are given.

Useful remark: Let $`|x|=\frac{1}{4^n}_{v(x)}v`$ be the norm obtained after symmetrizing with respect to $`\{u_i\}`$ and $`\{v_i\}`$. Take $`UO(n)`$, and let $`||_U`$ be the norm obtained after symmetrizing with respect to $`\{Uu_i\}`$ and $`\{Uv_i\}`$. Then $`|Ux|_U=\frac{1}{4^n}_{v(x)}Uv`$. Therefore, due to the rotation invariance of the measure $`\mu _n`$ in $`O(n)`$, it is possible to fix an orthonormal system $`\{u_i\}`$, and prove the following:

###### Theorem 4.1

With the above definitions,

$$xS^{n1}(1c\frac{(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}})x_U(1+c\frac{(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}})$$

with probability greater than $`1e^{Cn}`$ of choosing $`UO(n)`$, and probability greater than $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$ of choosing $`\{v_i\}`$.

The proof shall use three lemmas:

###### Lemma 4.2

$`x,yS^{n1}\frac{1}{4^n}_{v(x)}|v,y|2c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$

for any $`\{u_i\}`$, with probability of choosing $`\{v_i\}`$ greater than $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$.

*Proof:* According to Lemma 2.3, with probability greater than $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$, for all $`i,j`$ the inequality $`|v_i,u_j|c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$ holds. Thus:

$$\frac{1}{4^n}\underset{v(x)}{}|v,y|=𝔼_{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}\left|\underset{i,j}{}\epsilon _i\epsilon _j^{}x,v_iv_i,u_ju_j,y\right|$$

$$\sqrt{𝔼_{\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{}}\left[\underset{i,j}{}\epsilon _i\epsilon _j^{}x,v_iv_i,u_ju_j,y\right]^2}$$

$$=\sqrt{\underset{i,j}{}x,v_i^2v_i,u_j^2u_j,y^2}c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}$$

since $`x`$ and $`y`$ are sphere vectors.

The next lemma is copied from \[BLM\], where it is proven.

###### Lemma 4.3

Assume that $`\{w_\alpha \}_{\alpha A}S^{n1}`$, and for some $`\delta >0`$,

$$\underset{yS^{n1}}{sup}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}A}\underset{\alpha A}{}|w_\alpha ,y|\delta $$

Let $`0<\lambda <1`$ and let $`kn`$ be an integer. Then the set $`A`$ can be partitioned into families $`_\beta =\{\beta _i\}_{i=1}^kA,\beta B`$, so that $`\mathrm{\#}(_{\beta B}_\beta )>(1\lambda )\mathrm{\#}Ak`$ and so that for every $`\beta B`$ there is an orthonormal set of vectors $`\{v_{\beta _i}\}_{i=1}^k`$ satisfying

$$|v_{\beta _i}w_{\beta _i}|\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda }$$

Concentration on the orthogonal group shall be used in the proof of Theorem 4.1, due to \[GM\] (see \[MS\], page 29):

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $``$ be a norm on $`^n`$ such that $`xb|x|xS^{n1}`$. Let $`kn`$ be a positive integer, and $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^k`$ be orthonormal vectors. Denote $`M=_{S^{n1}}x𝑑\sigma _n(x)`$. Then:

$$\mu _n\{UO(n);|\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Ux_iM|\epsilon \}\text{exp}(c_4\frac{\epsilon ^2nk}{b^2})$$

*Proof of Theorem 4.1*: Fix $`xS^{n1}`$. Let $`\epsilon =c_5\frac{(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}`$, $`\lambda =\frac{\epsilon }{b}`$ and $`k=\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{10}`$. According to Lemma 4.2, the collection of vectors $`(x)`$ satisfies the requirement of Lemma 4.3 for $`\delta =2c_1\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$, with large probability of choosing $`\{v_i\}`$ (and of course independently of $`U`$). As a result, $`(x)`$ can be decomposed into disjoint almost orthogonal families $`\{_\beta \}_{\beta B}`$, which cover all but a $`\lambda `$ fraction of $`(x)`$.
From Lemma 4.3, for each family $`=\{x_1,..,x_k\}(x)`$, there exist orthonormal vectors $`\{t_1,..,t_k\}`$ such that $`|t_ix_i|\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda }`$. Since $`\{t_i\}_{i=1}^k`$ are orthonormal, then by Lemma 4.4:

$$\mu _n\{UO(n);|\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Ut_i1|\epsilon \}\text{exp}(c_4\frac{nk\epsilon ^2}{b^2})$$

where $`b=sup_{xS^{n1}}x`$. Since $`Ut_iUx_ib\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda }`$, then:

$$|\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Ux_i1|\epsilon +b\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda }$$
(4)
with probability (of choosing $`UO(n)`$) of at least $`1\text{exp}(c_4\frac{nk\epsilon ^2}{b^2})`$.

This holds for a single family $``$. The number of families is less than $`4^n`$, so inequality (4) holds for all families $`\{_\beta \}_{\beta B}`$ together, with probability greater than $`14^n\text{exp}(c_4\frac{nk\epsilon ^2}{b^2})=1\text{exp}(c_4n(\frac{k\epsilon ^2}{b^2}\mathrm{log}4))`$.
There still remains a $`\lambda `$ fraction of the collection $`(x)`$, not covered by the disjoint families $`\{_\beta \}_{\beta B}`$. Their contribution to the relevant expression, which is $`|\frac{1}{4^n}_{v(x)}Uv1|`$, can be bounded by $`\lambda b`$. Hence:

$$||Ux|_U1|=|\frac{1}{4^n}\underset{v(x)}{}Uv1|$$

$$\frac{k}{4^n}\underset{\beta B}{}|\frac{1}{k}\underset{v_\beta }{}(Uv1)|+\frac{\lambda 4^n}{4^n}b(1\lambda )(\epsilon +b\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda })+\lambda b$$

In summary: choose $`\{v_i\}`$ by random. With probability of at least $`1\frac{1}{n^{10}}`$, the following holds: the set of $`UO(n)`$ for which

$$||Ux|_U1|\epsilon +b\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda }+\lambda b$$
(5)
has measure of at least $`1\text{exp}(c_4n(\frac{k\epsilon ^2}{b^2}\mathrm{log}4))`$. From substituting the values of the variables $`k`$, $`\epsilon `$, $`\lambda `$, it follows that $`\lambda b\epsilon `$, and also $`b\frac{\delta 4^k}{\lambda }<\epsilon `$, for $`n>c_6`$. Therefore, the quantity discussed in (5) is less than $`3\epsilon `$, for $`n>c_6`$.
The inequality $`||Ux|_U1|3\epsilon `$ holds with probability (with respect to $`U`$) of at least $`1\text{exp}(c_4n(\frac{k\epsilon ^2}{b^2}\mathrm{log}4))`$. With a suitable universal constant $`c_5`$ this probability would be greater than $`1\text{exp}(10n\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)`$.

This analysis considered a fixed $`xS^{n1}`$. Now, take an $`\epsilon `$-net on the sphere denoted by $`𝒩`$. There exists such a net with $`\mathrm{\#}𝒩(\frac{4}{\epsilon })^n`$. For each $`x𝒩`$, $`||Ux|_U1|3\epsilon `$ with probability greater than $`1\text{exp}(10n\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)`$. Since $`(\frac{4}{\epsilon })^n\text{exp}(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)`$ for $`n>c_6`$, then $`||Ux|_U1|3\epsilon `$ holds for all $`x𝒩`$, with more than exponentially close to $`1`$ probability.

For a general $`xS^{n1}`$, write $`x=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}\theta _ix_i`$, where $`Ux_i𝒩`$, and $`\theta _0=1,0\theta _i\epsilon ^i`$. Then $`|x|_U_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1+3\epsilon )\epsilon ^i=\frac{1+3\epsilon }{1\epsilon }1+5\epsilon `$. Finally, $`|x|_U|x_0|_U_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}|\theta _i||x_i|_U15\epsilon `$.

Hence, with slightly better than exponentially close to $`1`$ probability, the new norm $`||`$ satisfies

$$x^n(1\epsilon )|x||x|(1+\epsilon )|x|$$

where $`\epsilon <c\frac{(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}`$, and the theorem is proven, for $`n>c_6`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark:* Using a Walsh-type symmetrization in the second step, the theorem can be proven with $`\epsilon <c\frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n}{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}n}}`$, an improvement of a mere $`\sqrt{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n}`$ factor.

I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Vitali Milman, for our inspiring discussions and for his ongoing support throughout the research of this topic.