text:
# Gravitational Lensing by a Compound Population of Halos: Standard Models

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that gravitational lensing is a powerful tool for directly probing the structure and distribution of dark matter in the Universe (Turner, Ostriker, & Gott, 1984; Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco, 1992; Bartelmann & Schneider, 2001; Courbin, Saha, & Schechter, 2002, and references therein). By comparing the number of lenses found in a survey of remote sources (e.g., quasars, radio galaxies, or high redshift type Ia supernova) to theoretical predictions, we should be able to deduce the quantity of dark matter in the Universe and how it is distributed (Turner, 1990; Wambsganss et al., 1995; Porciani & Madau, 2000; Keeton, 2001; Keeton & Madau, 2001; Li & Ostriker, 2002, henceforth LO02; Gladders et al. 2003). The joint observations of gravitational lensing, high redshift type Ia supernova, cosmic microwave background (CMB), and cluster abundances constrain the Universe to be in all likelihood flat and accelerating, with the present mass density being composed of about 70% cosmological constant (or dark energy), 26% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter (Ostriker & Steinhardt, 1995; Bahcall et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2000; Peacock et al., 2001; Efstathiou et al., 2002; Yamamoto, 2002; Spergel et al., 2003).

However, the lensing cross-section (and thus the lensing probability) is found to be extremely sensitive to the inner density profile of lenses (Keeton & Madau 2001; Wyithe, Turner, & Spergel 2001; LO02). For example, with fixed total mass, when the inner slope of the density profile, $`\alpha `$, changes from $`1`$ \[the NFW case (Navarro, Frenk, & White, 1996, 1997)\] to $`2`$ \[the singular isothermal sphere (SIS) case (Gott & Gunn, 1974; Turner, Ostriker, & Gott, 1984)\] while maintaining the same mass density in lenses, the integral lensing probability increases by more than two orders of magnitudes for the flat model of the Universe (LO02). Therefore, lensing also sensitively probes small scale structure. This complicates matters and renders it is hazardous to use observed lensing statistics to draw inferences with regard to cosmology before determining the sensitivity to other factors.

In LO02, we have shown that in order to explain the observed numbers of lenses found in the JVAS/CLASS survey, at least two populations of dark halos must exist in nature. One population, which corresponds to normal galaxies, has masses $`10^{13}M_{}`$ and a steep inner density profile ($`\alpha 2`$, i.e. SIS) presumably determined by the distribution of baryonic material in the inner parts of galaxies;111Strictly speaking, the mass density profile of galaxies is the combination of the density profile of hark halos and that of baryonic material at the centers. For brevity, in the paper we still call it the mass density of halos, though we mean the sum of the mass density of dark halos and that of baryonic material whenever we refer to galaxies. the other one, which corresponds to groups or clusters of galaxies, has masses $`10^{13}M_{}`$ and a shallow inner density profile ($`\alpha 1.4`$, i.e. similar to NFW). A similar conclusion has been obtained by Porciani & Madau (2000) for explaining the number of lenses found in the CASTLES survey. These results are consistent with the theoretical studies on the cooling of massive gas clouds: there is a critical mass of halos $`10^{13}M_{}`$ below which cooling of the corresponding baryonic component will lead to concentration of the baryons to the inner parts of the mass profile (Rees & Ostriker, 1977; Blumenthal et al., 1986).

In this paper we investigate the lensing statistics produced by a compound population of halos. We assume that there are three populations of halos in the Universe:

— Population A: $`10^{10}h^1M_{}<M<2\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$, $`\alpha =2`$ (SIS);
— Population B: $`M>2\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$, $`\alpha =1.3`$ \[GNFW (generalized NFW, Zhao, 1996)\];
— Population C: $`M<10^{10}h^1M_{}`$, $`\alpha =1.3`$ (GNFW),

where $`h`$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s-1 Mpc-1. Population A corresponds to spiral and elliptical galaxies, whose centers are dominated by baryonic matter. Population B corresponds to groups or clusters of galaxies, whose centers are dominated by dark matter. Population C corresponds to dwarf galaxies or subgalactic objects, whose centers lack baryons due to feedback processes such as supernova explosions, stellar winds, and photoionizations (Kauffmann, White, & Guiderdoni, 1993; Somerville & Primack, 1999; Benson et al., 2002; Ma, 2003), and so are also dominated by dark matter. We adopt an inner slope for the dark matter halos of $`\alpha =1.3`$ consistent with the value $`1.3\pm 0.2`$ found by Subramanian, Cen, & Ostriker (2000) and intermediate between the values advocated by Navarro, Frenk, & White (1996, 1997) of $`\alpha =1.0`$ and Ghigna et al. (2000) of $`\alpha =1.5`$. We will calculate here the lensing probability of two measurable variables: image separation and time delay, examining in a subsequent paper the expected arc properties.

Recently, Davis, Huterer, & Krauss (2003) used lensing statistics to constrain the inner slope of lensing galaxies. Using the Schechter function (Schechter, 1976), they constrained the inner slope of lensing galaxies to the range from $`1.58`$ to $`1.98`$, at 95% confidence level (CL). It is hard to predict how their result would change if the Press-Schechter function (Press & Schechter, 1974) were used. Our choice of $`\alpha =2`$ for galaxies is supported by the following fact: stellar dynamics of elliptical galaxies, modeling of lensed systems, and flux ratios of multiple images all give an inner profile that is consistent with SIS (Rix et al., 1997; Romanowsky & Kochanek, 1999; Cohn et al., 2001; Rusin & Ma, 2001; Treu & Koopmans, 2002; Rusin, 2002; Rusin, Kochanek, & Keeton, 2003).

Sand, Treu, & Ellis (2002) have reported a remarkably flat inner slope in the lensing cluster MS2137-23: $`\alpha <0.9`$ at 99% CL. However, by measuring the average gravitational shear profile of six massive clusters of virial masses $`10^{15}M_{}`$, Dahle, Hannestad, & Sommer-Larsen (2003) have found that the data are well fitted by a mass density profile with $`\alpha 0.91.6`$ for SCDM model and $`\alpha 1.31.6`$ for LCDM model, both at 68% CL. So, our choice of $`\alpha =1.3`$ for population B looks reasonable. The inner density slopes for small mass halos are not well constrained. CDM simulations generally predict a cusped inner density, while other dark matter models, like warm dark matter (Bode, Ostriker, & Turok, 2001), repulsive dark matter (Goodman, 2000), and collisional dark matter (Spergel & Steinhard, 2000), tend to predict flatter inner density (see also Ricotti 2002). Our choice of $`\alpha =1.3`$ for population C should be a reasonable upper limit. In her recent paper, by requiring that the Schechter luminosity function and the Press-Schechter mass function to give consistent predictions for the image separation below $`1^{\prime \prime }`$, Ma (2003) has shown that the fraction of SIS halos peaks around mass of $`10^{12}M_{}`$ and quickly drops for large and small mass halos. This is qualitatively consistent with the model that we adopt in this paper.

The paper is organized as follows: In §2 we write down the lensing cross-section produced by SIS and GNFW halos. In §3 we show how to calculate the lensing probability, assuming that halos are composed of the population defined above, whose mass function is given by the Press-Schechter function (Press & Schechter, 1974). In §4 we present our results. In §5 we summarize and discuss our results.

## 2 Lensing by SIS and GNFW Halos

Issues related to image separation are presented in LO02 in detail, so here we focus on the time delay between multiple images produced by gravitational lensing.

### 2.1 Singular isothermal sphere

The density profile for an SIS is (Gott & Gunn, 1974; Turner, Ostriker, & Gott, 1984)

$`\rho (r)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _v^2}{2\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}},`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _v`$ is the constant velocity dispersion.

Assuming that the angular-diameter distances from the observer to the lens and the source are respectively $`D_L^A`$ and $`D_S^A`$, from the lens to the source is $`D_{LS}^A`$. Then, the time delay between the two images of the remote source lensed by an SIS halo is (Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco, 1992)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }t_1y,\mathrm{\Delta }t_1{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \xi _0}{c}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _v}{c}}\right)^2(1+z_L),`$ (2)
where

$`\xi _04\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _v}{c}}\right)^2D_R^A,D_R^A{\displaystyle \frac{D_L^AD_{LS}^A}{D_S^A}},`$ (3)
$`z_L`$ is the redshift of the lens (dark halo), $`y`$ is the distance from the source to the point where the line of sight through the lens center intersects the source plane, in units of $`\eta _0\xi _0D_S^A/D_L^A`$ .

The cross-section for producing two images with a time delay $`>\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is

$`\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\pi \xi _0^2\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}}\right)^2\right]\vartheta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$ (4)
where $`\vartheta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ is the step function.

### 2.2 Generalized NFW profile

The density profile for a GNFW profile is (Zhao 1996; Wyithe, Turner, & Spergel 2001; LO02)

$`\rho (r)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _sr_s^3}{r^\alpha (r+r_s)^{3\alpha }}},`$ (5)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\rho _s`$, and $`r_s`$ are constants. The case of $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to the NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk, & White, 1996, 1997). The case of $`\alpha =2`$, $`r_s\mathrm{}`$ but keeping $`\rho _sr_s^2`$ constant, corresponds to the SIS profile. In this paper, we take $`\alpha =1.3`$ for Populations B and C.

In the lens plane, we denote the distance from the lens center to the point where the light ray of the source object intersects the lens plane by $`x`$, in units of $`r_s`$. In the source plane, we denote the distance from the source to the point where the line of sight through the lens center intersects the source plane by $`y`$, in units of $`r_sD_S^A/D_L^A`$. Then, the lensing equation is (LO02)

$`y=x\mu _s{\displaystyle \frac{g(x)}{x}},g(x){\displaystyle _0^x}u𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z(u^2+z^2)^{\alpha /2}\left[(u^2+z^2)^{1/2}+1\right]^{\alpha 3},`$ (6)
where

$`\mu _s{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{c^2}}\rho _sr_sD_R^A.`$ (7)
To a good approximation, the time delay between the two images produced by a GNFW halo is given by (Oguri et al., 2002)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }t_2{\displaystyle \frac{y}{y_r}},\mathrm{\Delta }t_2{\displaystyle \frac{2r_s^2x_t}{cD_R^A}}(1+z_L)y_r,`$ (8)
where $`x_t`$ is the positive root of $`y(x)=0`$, $`y_r`$ corresponds to the positive $`y`$ at $`dy/dx=0`$.

The cross-section for producing two images with a time delay $`>\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is

$`\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\pi y_r^2r_s^2\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}\right)^2\right]\vartheta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t).`$ (9)
## 3 Gravitational Lensing Produced by the Compound Population

The probability for a remote point source lensed by foreground dark halos is given by

$`P=1e^\tau ,\tau {\displaystyle _0^{z_S}}𝑑z_L{\displaystyle \frac{dD_L}{dz_L}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Mn(M,z_L)\sigma (M,z_L),`$ (10)
where $`z_S`$ is the redshift of the source, $`D_L`$ is the proper distance from the observer to a lens at redshift $`z_L`$, $`n(M,z_L)dM`$ is the proper number density of lens objects of masses between $`M`$ and $`M+dM`$, $`\sigma (M,z_L)`$ is the lensing cross-section of a dark halo of mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z_L`$. When $`\tau 1`$ (which is true in most cases for lensing statistics), we have $`P\tau `$.

For both SIS and GNFW profiles, the mass contained within radius $`r`$ diverges as $`r\mathrm{}`$. So, a cutoff in radius must be introduced. Here, as is typically done in the literature, we define the mass of a dark halo to be the mass within a sphere of radius $`r=r_{200}`$, where $`r_{200}`$ is the radius within which the average mass density is $`200`$ times the critical mass density of the universe at the redshift of the halo.

As in LO02, we consider three kinds of cosmological models: LCDM, OCDM, and SCDM. We assume that the number density of dark halos is distributed in mass according to the Press-Schechter function (Press & Schechter, 1974). We compute the CDM power spectrum using the fitting formula given by Eisenstein & Hu (1999), where, to be consistent with the recent observations of WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003), we assume the Hubble constant $`h=0.7`$ and the primordial spectrum index $`n_s=0.96`$. For OCDM and SCDM, we determine the value of $`\sigma _8`$ by the cluster abundances constraint (Wang & Steinhardt, 1998; Wang et al., 2000)

$`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_m^\gamma 0.5,`$ (11)
where $`\gamma 0.33+0.35\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. For LCDM, we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ to be consistent with the observations of WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003): $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.27`$ (then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L=0.73`$), $`\sigma _8=0.84`$.

A new cluster abundances constraint has recently been obtained by Bahcall et al. (2003) with the SDSS data. The best-fit cluster normalization is given by $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}=0.33\pm 0.03`$ (for $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.4`$) for the flat model of the Universe with a Hubble constant $`h=0.72`$. Bahcall et al. (2003) found that the best-fit parameters of the observed mass function are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.19\pm _{0.07}^{0.08}`$ and $`\sigma _8=0.9\pm _{0.2}^{0.3}`$. Recent calibration of the cluster data based on X-ray observations (Borgani et al., 2001; Reiprich & Böhringer, 2002; Seljak, 2002; Viana, Nichol, & Liddle, 2002) are closer to the Bahcall et al. (2003) result. So, for comparison, we will also present some results for a flat LCDM model with the Bahcall et al. normalization to show the sensitivity of results to normalization.

For the case of image separation, the cross-section $`\sigma `$ can be found in LO02 (eqs.  for SIS and  for GNFW). For the case of time delay, the cross-section is given by equation (4) for SIS halos, and equation (9) for GNFW halos.

We normalize the GNFW profile so that the concentration parameter $`c_1r_{200}/r_s`$ satisfies (Oguri, Taruya, & Suto, 2001; Oguri et al., 2002)

$`c_1(M,z_L)=c_{\mathrm{norm}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{1+z_L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^{14}h^1M_{}}}\right)^{0.13}.`$ (12)
Throughout the paper we fix $`c_{\mathrm{norm}}=8`$, in consistence with the simulations (Bullock et al., 2001).

For the model of compound halo population considered in this paper, the integration over mass $`M`$ is divided into three parts: $`_0^{M_a}`$ for GNFW with $`\alpha =1.3`$, $`_{M_a}^{M_b}`$ for SIS, and $`_{M_b}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for GNFW with $`\alpha =1.3`$ ; where $`M_a=10^{10}h^1M_{}`$, $`M_b=2\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ .

## 4 Results

With the formalism described above, we are ready to calculate the lensing probability for images separation and time delay. The models to be calculated are listed in Table 1. As explained in the previous section, we take three different normalizations for LCDM models: in most of calculations we choose parameters to be consistent with WMAP (Spergel et al., 2003), but, for comparison, we will also present some results corresponding to the normalization of Bahcall et al. (2003). For OCDM and SCDM models, we adopt equation (11) for normalization. Throughout the paper we take $`h=0.7`$ and $`n_s=0.96`$.

### 4.1 Image separation

For image separation, we have calculated the differential lensing probability

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{d\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{dP(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )}{d\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }},`$ (13)
where $`P(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$ is given by equation (10) with $`\sigma =\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$. We show the results for different cosmological models in Figure 1, separately for the three different components in the whole population: Population A (galaxies, the highest island), Population B (groups and clusters of galaxies, the second high island), and Population C (dwarf galaxies and subgalactic objects, the lowest island). The source object is assumed to be at $`z_S=3`$.

From the figure we see that, Population A (galaxies) contributes most to the total number of lenses, due to its steep inner density slope ($`\alpha =2`$); Population B contributes less; Population C contributes least, due to its small mass and shallow inner density slope ($`\alpha =1.3`$). Consistent with the results in LO02, the lensing probability produced by the $`\alpha =1.3`$ GNFW halos is smaller than the lensing probability produced by SIS halos by two orders of magnitudes in the overlap regions. (The results here are slightly different from those in LO02 due to the fact that in this paper we use a different normalization in the concentration parameter, i.e. eq. .)

In Figure 2, we show the LCDM ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.27`$, $`\sigma _8=0.84`$) results corresponding to different redshift of the source object: from $`z_S=1`$ to $`z_S=10`$. We see that the lensing probability increases quickly with the source redshift, increasing by an order of magnitude between $`z_S=1`$ and $`z_S=3`$ (cf. Wambsganss, Bode, & Ostriker 2003). However, the rate of increase in the lensing probability decreases with the source redshift, this is because that the proper distance from the source object to the observer approaches a finite limit as $`z_S\mathrm{}`$ (due to the existence of a horizon in an expanding universe). We also see that, as the source redshift increases, the splitting angle corresponding to the peak probability of each island shifts toward larger values. In Figure 3, we show the corresponding integral lensing probability

$`P(<\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )=P(>0)P(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ).`$ (14)
To compare the predictions with observations, the effect of magnification bias must be considered (Turner, Ostriker, & Gott 1984; Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco 1992; LO02; Oguri et al. 2002). When the source objects have a flux distribution $`f^\beta `$ ($`\beta <3`$) and the probability density for magnification is $`A^3`$, the magnification bias is given by (LO02)

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\beta }}A_m^{\beta 1},`$ (15)
where $`A_m`$ is the minimum of the total amplification. For SIS lenses we have $`A_m=2`$. For GNFW lenses, $`A_m`$ can be approximated by

$`A_m{\displaystyle \frac{2x_t}{y_ry_t^{}}},`$ (16)
where $`y_t^{}(dy/dx)(x=x_t)`$.

Equation (16) is an improvement to the equation (68) of LO02. The magnification bias calculated with equations (15) and (16) agrees with that calculated with the more complicated formula of Oguri et al. (2002) with errors $`<5\%`$ for $`0.01<\mu _s<10`$.

For GNFW lenses with $`\alpha =1.3`$, we show the average magnification bias $`B`$ (defined by the ratio of the biased lensing probability to that without bias) as a function of image separation in Figure 4 (as an improvement to the Fig. 10 of LO02) for the JVAS/CLASS survey (Meyers et al., 2003; Browne et al., 2003), where we have assumed $`\beta =2.1`$ (Rusin & Tegmark, 2001) and $`z_S=1.27`$ (Marlow et al., 2000). The magnification bias for GNFW lenses depends on cosmological models, decreases with increasing image separation, and is bigger than the magnification bias for SIS lenses (which is a constant $`B4.76`$) by about $`1.2`$ order of magnitude on average (for $`\alpha =1.3`$).

In Figure 5, we compare our predictions (including magnification bias) for the compound model with observations from the JVAS/CLASS survey. The data are updated compared to Helbig (2000). The new data contain $`13`$ lenses found in a sample of $`8958`$ of radio sources which form a statistical sample (Browne et al., 2003). Considering error bars, both LCDM and OCDM models with both normalizations are marginally consistent with the JVAS/CLASS observational data.222The apparent excess in the prediction for small splitting angles is caused by the angular selection effect: the JVAS/CLASS survey is limited to image separation $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ (Browne et al., 2003). Comparing LCDM2 with LCDM3, we find that even for the same cluster normalization there is significant discriminatory power available from lensing statistics (if data is available) in breaking the degeneracy on the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m},\sigma _8)`$ plane. This is consistent with our previous results (LO02). The three different LCDM models do not differ significantly in their predictions at small splittings but for splittings above 10 arcseconds the Bahcall et al normalization, LCDM3, predicts few lenses by more than a factor of five.

### 4.2 Time delay

For time delay, we have calculated the differential lensing probability

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP}{d\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }t}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP(>\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{d\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }t}},`$ (17)
where $`P(>\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ is given by equation (10) with $`\sigma =\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. We show the results in Figure 6, for the same models in §4.1.

We see that, the distribution of lensing probability over time delay is very similar to the distribution over image separation (compare Fig. 2 to Fig. 1). Again, the contribution to lensing events is overwhelmingly dominated by Population A due to its steep inner density slope. Population C contributes the least.

We have also calculated the lensing probability for time delay corresponding to different source redshift: from $`z_S=1`$ to $`z_S=10`$. The results for the LCDM model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.27`$, $`\sigma _8=0.84`$) are shown in Figure 7 for the differential lensing probability $`dP/d\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and Figure 8 for the integral lensing probability

$`P(<\mathrm{\Delta }t)=P(>0)P(>\mathrm{\Delta }t).`$ (18)
From these figures we see that, like in the case for image separation, the lensing probability sensitively depends on $`z_S`$ for small $`z_S`$. For large $`z_S`$, the lensing probability becomes less sensitive to the source redshift, due to the fact that $`dD_S/dz_S`$ decreases with increasing $`z_S`$.

We can calculate the joint lensing probability $`P(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ by using the joint cross-section

$`\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )\vartheta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_i\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_i=\mathrm{\Delta }t_1`$ for SIS and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_2`$ for GNFW. The cross-section $`\sigma (>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$ is given by equation (37) of LO02 for SIS, and equation (48) of LO02 for GNFW. Then, we can calculate the conditional lensing probability $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ defined by

$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t){\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }}P(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t),`$ (20)
which gives the distribution of lensing events over time delay for a given image separation.

Knowing $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, we can calculate the median time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}`$ is defined by

$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ,>0).`$ (21)
The prediction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is not sensitive to the magnification bias since it is determined by the ratio of two probabilities. So, the correlation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ provides a test of lensing models independent of the determination of magnification bias.

The results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )`$ for the LCDM ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.27`$, $`\sigma _8=0.84`$; indeed the results are insensitive to the cosmological parameters) model are shown in Figure 9, where the source object is again assumed to be at $`z_S=1.27`$. In Figure 9 we also show the quadrant deviations (dashed lines), which are defined by equation (21) with the $`1/2`$ on the right-hand side being replaced by $`1/4`$ and $`3/4`$, respectively. The observational data, taken from Oguri et al. (2002), fit the LCDM model well. Comparison of Figure 9 with Oguri et al. (2002)’s Figure 6 indicates that our compound model fits the observations better. The single population model predicts a single (almost) straight line in the $`\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}`$ space. For the compound model, a “step” is produced at the point where the mass density profile changes. The “step” that we see in Figure 9 corresponds to the transition from population A (galaxies) to population B (galaxy groups/clusters).

## 5 Summary and Discussion

As an extension of our previous work (LO02), we computed the lensing probability produced by a compound population of dark halos. We have calculated the lensing probability for both image separation and time delay. The calculations confirm our previous results (LO02) that the lensing probability produced by GNFW halos with $`\alpha 1.3`$ is lower than that produced by SIS halos with same masses by orders of magnitudes, where $`\alpha `$ is the inner slope of the halo mass density. So, for the compound population of halos, both the number of lenses with large image separation ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 5^{\prime \prime }`$) and the number of lenses with small image separation ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 10^{2\prime \prime }`$) are greatly suppressed. The same conclusion holds also for the number of lenses with large time delay ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t10\mathrm{years}`$) and the number of lenses with small time delay ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t10^4\mathrm{year}`$). (See Figs. 1 and 6. This conclusion holds even when the effect of magnification bias is considered, see Figs. 4 and 5.)

We have also tested the dependence of the lensing probability on the redshift of the source object (Figs. 2, 3, 7, and 8). The results show that, the lensing probability is quite sensitive to the change in the redshift of the source object. The number of lenses significantly increases as the source redshift increases. However, the rate of the increase decreases as the source redshift becomes large, which is caused by the fact that the proper cosmological distance approaches a finite limit when $`z_S\mathrm{}`$. Another interesting result is that, the peak of the lensing probability for each population moves toward large image separation or time delay, as the source redshift increases.

We see that population C (dwarf halos) in an LCDM model has a unique signature in the time domain, c.f. Figures 6 and 7. Time delays of less than $`10`$ seconds and greater than 0.1 second are predicted and should be found in gamma-ray burst sources which are at cosmological distances and have the requisite temporal substructure. Variants of CDM, such as warm dark matter (Bode, Ostriker, & Turok, 2001), repulsive dark matter (Goodman, 2000), or collisional dark matter (Spergel & Steinhard, 2000) would not produce this feature. However, current surveys do not go deep enough to provide a sufficiently large sample to test the prediction. When more observational data on gamma-ray burst time delay and small splitting angles become available, our calculations can be used to distinguish different dark matter models (Nemiroff et al., 2001; Wilkinson et al., 2001).

We have compared the distribution of the number of lenses over image separation predicted by our model with the updated JVAS/CLASS observational data, with the new WMAP cosmological parameters (Fig. 5). Since the JVAS/CLASS survey is limited to image separation $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ (Browne et al., 2003), we cannot test our predictions for small image separations. However, in the range that is probed by JVAS/CLASS, we see that both the LCDM and OCDM models fit the observation reasonably well and current data do not allow us to distinguish between the two proposed normalizations for the LCDM spectrum, even though these produce predictions that differ by a factor of roughly $`1.4`$. An explicit search for lenses with image separation between $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ has found no lenses (Phillips et al., 2001), which rules out the SIS model for image separation in this range (LO02). This together with our Figure 5 supports our model of compound population of halos. For separations greater than $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ the differently normalized LCDM models produce significantly different results, thus producing an additional lever to break the degeneracies in the WMAP results (cf. Bridle et al. 2003)

We have also calculated the distribution of the mean time delay vs image separation for the LCDM model (Fig. 9). We see that, the compound model fits observations quite well, better than the model of single population of halos (Oguri et al., 2002). The compound model predicts a unique feature in the $`\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{med}}`$ plane: there is a “step” corresponding to the transition in mass density profile. This can be better tested when more observation data are available.

A controlled survey of lenses with double the sample size of CLASS, perhaps obtainable via SDSS (York et al., 2000; Stoughton et al., 2002), should allow one to better distinguish between LCDM variants and perhaps between LCDM models and those based on quintessence (Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt, 1998) rather than a cosmological constant.

We thank B. Paczyński for many helpful discussions, and the anonymous referee whose comments helped to improve our results. LXL’s research was supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship grant number PF1-20018 awarded by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-39073. JPO’s research was supported by the NSF grants ASC-9740300 (subaward 766) and AST-9803137.


format: text

text:
# Absolute continuity of autophage measures on finite-dimensional vector spaces

## 1 Introduction and Preliminaries

Let $`G`$ be a locally compact second countable group. Let $`𝒫(G)`$ be the space of Borel probability measures on $`G`$, equipped with the weak topology. For any $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda 𝒫(G)`$, $`\mu \lambda `$ denotes the convolution of $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. For $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mu }`$ is defined by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mu }(B)=\mu (B^1)`$ for any Borel subset $`B`$ of $`G`$ and for any integer $`n1`$, $`\mu ^n`$ denotes the $`n`$th-convolution of power of $`\mu `$. We say that a measure $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$ is continuous if $`\mu (\{x\})=0`$ for all $`xG`$ and absolutely continuous if $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to a Haar measure on $`G`$. A continuous convolution semigroup $`(\mu _t)`$ in $`𝒫(G)`$ is a continuous homomorphism $`t\mu _t`$ from the additive semigroup $`^+0`$ into $`𝒫(G)`$.

Let Aut$`(G)`$ denotes the group of all continuous automorphisms of $`G`$. Then for any $`T\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ and $`\lambda 𝒫(G)`$, $`T(\lambda )`$ is defined by $`T(\lambda )(B)=\lambda (T^1(B))`$ for any Borel subset $`B`$ of $`G`$. An automorphism $`T\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is called contraction if $`T^nxe`$ for all $`xG`$. In case, $`G`$ is a finite-dimensional vector space over real or $`_p`$, we say that $`T\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is a strict-contraction if $`T<1`$, where $`||||`$ is the operator norm.

We say that a $`\lambda 𝒫(G)`$ is a factor of a $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$ if there exists a $`\nu 𝒫(G)`$ such that $`\mu =T(\lambda )\nu `$ and $`\nu `$ is called co-factor. Here we wish to study the measures $`\mu `$ for which there exists commuting contractions $`T`$ and $`S`$ such that $`T(\mu )`$ is a factor of $`\mu `$ with $`S(\mu )`$ as the corresponding co-factor. This type of measures on the real line was introduced and studied by Szekely and Szekely calls such measures autophage (see ). He also proved that nondegenerate autophage measures are infinitely divisible and absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density. The main part of his proof was to prove that the Fourier transform of such measures are integrable. This implies by Fourier inversion formula that such measures are absolutely continuous with continuous bounded density. Here we prove that autophage measures on finite dimensional vector spaces over real or $`_p`$ are infinitely divisible and absolutely continuous. For a given infinitely divisible probability measure it is of considerable interest to know when it is absolutely continuous. In this point of view these results are of considerable interest. We also show that certain semistable measures on vector spaces over real and $`_p`$ are absolutely continuous with bounded continuous density: see  for results on the absolute continuity of semistable measures on $`^N`$.

## 2 Menu-card of measures

###### Definition 2.1

We say that a measure $`\nu 𝒫(G)`$ belongs to the menu-card of a measure $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$ if $`\mu =T(\mu )\nu `$ for some contraction $`T`$ of $`G`$.

###### Remark 2.1

It is easy to see that a menu-card of a measure $`\mu `$ is non-empty if and only if $`\mu `$ is strongly $`T`$-decomposable for some contraction $`T`$: a measure $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$ is strongly $`T`$-decomposable for a $`T\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ if $`T(\mu )`$ is a factor of $`\mu `$ and $`T^n(\mu )\delta _e`$ (see  and  for results regarding strongly $`T`$-decomposable measures).

We now prove that the nondegenerate strongly $`T`$-decomposable measures on real and $`p`$-adic unipotent groups, studied in  are continuous which implies the continuity of measures with nontrivial menu-card. By an algebraic group over real or $`_p`$ we mean the group of real or $`_p`$ points of an algebraic group defined over real or $`_p`$ respectively.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`G`$ be a unipotent algebraic group over real or $`_p`$. Then nondegenerate strongly $`T`$-decomposable measures on $`G`$ are diffuse, that is, continuous. In particular, if the menu-card of a measure $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$ contains a nondegenerate measure then $`\mu `$ is continuous.

###### Proof

Let $`T\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be such that $`\mu =T(\mu )\nu `$ for some $`\nu 𝒫(G)`$ and $`T^n(\mu )\delta _e`$. Suppose $`\mu `$ is not continuous. We now claim that $`\mu `$ degenerates. Let $`Z`$ be the center of $`G`$. Let $`G_0=G`$ and for $`i1`$, $`G_i=[G,G_{i1}]`$. There exists a $`k0`$ such that $`G_k(e)`$ but $`G_{k+1}=(e)`$. Proof is based on induction on $`k`$. Suppose $`k=0`$, then $`G`$ is abelian. Since $`G`$ has no elements of finite order, by 3.5 of , $`\nu `$ degenerates and hence $`\mu `$ degenerates. Suppose $`k>0`$. Let $`G^{}=G/Z`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\nu ^{}`$ be the projection of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ under the canonical map from $`G`$ to $`G^{}`$. Let $`T^{}`$ be the factor automorphism of $`G^{}`$ corresponding to $`T`$. We then have $`\mu ^{}=T^{}\mu ^{}\nu ^{}`$. It may be easily seen that $`\mu ^{}`$ is also not continuous and hence by induction $`\mu ^{}`$ as well as $`\nu ^{}`$ degenerates. Now, let $`\lambda =\mu \stackrel{ˇ}{\mu }`$ and $`\rho =\nu \stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }`$. Then $`\lambda =T(\mu )\nu \stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }T(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mu })=T(\lambda )\rho `$ since $`\nu \stackrel{ˇ}{\nu }`$ is supported on the center of $`G`$. Also, $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ are supported on the center of $`G`$ and the center of $`G`$ is $`T`$-invariant. Since $`\mu `$ is not continuous, there exists a $`x_0G`$ such that $`\mu (\{x_0\})>0`$. Now, $`\lambda (\{e\})=\mu \stackrel{ˇ}{\mu }(\{e\})\mu (\{x_0\})^2>0`$. Thus, $`\lambda `$ is also not continuous. Thus, we infer from the abelian case that $`\lambda `$ degenerates and so does $`\mu `$.

## 3 Autophage measure

###### Definition 3.1

A measure $`\mu 𝒫(G)`$ is called autophage if there exists contractions $`T`$ and $`S`$ of $`G`$ such that $`\mu =T(\mu )S(\mu )`$ and $`TS=ST`$.

In  and  autophage measures were introduced on the real line $``$. We recall the definition of autophage on $``$, $`\mu 𝒫()`$ is autophage if $`F(x)=F(ax)F(bx)`$ for some $`a,b>1`$ where $`F`$ is the distribution of $`\mu `$. Our generalization in Definition 3.1 for measures on general groups, we replace the homothesies by two commuting contractions. If we had chosen two elements of a one-parameter semigroup of contractions in place of homothesies, our notion would be very restrictive. Because in the $`p`$-adic situation, there are no one-parameter groups but there are many autophage measures in the sense of Definition 3.1. Thus, our choice of commuting contractions in Definition 3.1 yields more autophage measures.

It may be easily seen that stable measures on finite-dimensional vector spaces are autophage. More generally, measures that are stable with respect to a commutative group of contractive automorphisms are autophage. We recall that a measure $`\mu `$ in $`𝒫(G)`$ is said to be $`(T,n)`$-semistable for some $`n`$ and for an automorphism $`T`$ if $`T(\mu ^n)=\mu `$. It may be easily seen that $`(T,2)`$-semistable measure is autophage when $`T`$ is a contractive automorphism.

We now directly show that Gaussian measures on $`^n`$ are autophage. Let $`\mu `$ be a symmetric Gaussian measure on $`^n`$. Then $`\widehat{\mu }(x)=\mathrm{exp}<Px,x>`$ where $`P`$ is a positive definite matrix. Let $`T`$ be any strict-contraction on $`^n`$ commuting with $`P`$ such that $`T`$ is invertible and symmetric (we may choose $`T`$ to be a non-zero homothesy). Then for any $`x^n`$, $`0<||x||^2||T(x)||^2=<IT^2(x),x>`$, that is, $`IT^2`$ is positive definite. Let $`S`$ be the unique square root of $`IT^2`$. Then $`S`$ is invertible and commutes with $`T`$. Since $`T`$ commutes with $`P`$, $`S`$ also commutes with $`P`$. This implies that $`TPT^{}+SPS^{}=T^2P+S^2P=(T^2+S^2)P=P`$. Thus, $`\mu =T(\mu )S(\mu )`$ where $`T`$ and $`S`$ are mutually commuting strict-contractions.

## 4 Infinite divisibility

For any two contractions $`T`$ and $`S`$ on $`G`$, let $`sg(T,S)`$ be the semigroup generated by $`T`$ and $`S`$. For any $`\alpha sg(T,S)`$, define $`l(\alpha )`$ to be the sum of number of $`T`$ and $`S`$ appear in the expression of $`\alpha `$. Then we have

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over real or $`_p`$. Let $`T`$ and $`S`$ be strict-contractions on $`V`$. Then $`\alpha (x)e`$ for all $`xV`$ as $`l(\alpha )\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof

Since $`T`$ and $`S`$ are strict-contractions, for a given $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a $`k1`$, $`T^n<1`$ and $`S^n<1`$ for all $`nk`$. For $`\alpha sg(T,S)`$ with $`l(\alpha )=n`$, we have $`\alpha T^{ni}S^i`$ for some $`0in`$. If $`n=l(\alpha )2k`$, then $`\alpha <ϵ`$. Thus, $`\alpha 0`$ as $`l(\alpha )\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over real or $`_p`$. Let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_m`$ be strict-contractions on $`V`$. Suppose $`\mu `$ is a probability measure such that $`\mu =T_1(\mu )T_2(\mu )\mathrm{}T_m(\mu )`$. Then $`\mu `$ is infinitely divisible without idempotent factors.

###### Proof

We treat the case $`m=2`$ and the general case may be done in a similar fashion. Let $`T`$ and $`S`$ be strict-contractions on $`G`$ such that $`\mu =T(\mu )S(\mu )`$. We first claim that $`\mu `$ is infinitely divisible. Iteratively we get that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mu & =& T(\mu )S(\mu )\hfill \\ & =& T^2(\mu )TS(\mu )ST(\mu )S^2(\mu )\hfill \\ & =& T^3(\mu )T^2S(\mu )TST(\mu )TS^2(\mu )ST^2(\mu )STS(\mu )S^2T(\mu )S^3(\mu )\hfill \\ & =& \mathrm{}\mathrm{}..\hfill \\ & =& _\alpha \alpha (\mu )\hfill \end{array}$$

where the product varies over all $`\alpha `$ in $`\{\alpha sg(T,S)l(\alpha )=n\}`$. Thus, we have a triangular system of probability measure where sum of the row product is $`\mu `$ and the nth row is

$$T^n(\mu ),T^{n1}S(\mu ),\mathrm{},S^{n1}T(\mu ),S^n(\mu ).$$

Since the group is abelian, it is enough to claim that the triangular system is infinitesimal. That is, we should prove that $`\alpha (\mu )e`$ as $`l(\alpha )\mathrm{}`$ which follows from Lemma 4.1 and dominated convergence theorem.

We now claim that $`\mu `$ has no idempotent factors. We may assume that $`V`$ is a $`p`$-adic vector space. Let $`\omega _K`$ be the maximal idempotent factor of $`\mu `$. By a Theorem of Parthasarathy and Sazanov (see Theorem 7.2 of ), $`\mu =\omega _K\mu _1`$ where $`\mu _1`$ is an infinitely divisible measure without idempotent factors. Since $`T`$ and $`S`$ are automorphisms, $`T(K)`$ and $`S(K)`$ are the maximal idempotent factors of $`T(\mu )`$ and $`S(\mu )`$ respectively and $`T(\mu _1)`$ and $`S(\mu _1)`$ are infinitely divisible measures without idempotent factors. We also get that $`\omega _K\mu _1=\omega _{T(K)S(K)}T(\mu _1)S(\mu _1)`$. Since $`T(\mu _1)`$ and $`S(\mu _1)`$ are infinitely divisible without idempotent factors, by Theorem 4.2 of , the Fourier transform of $`T(\mu _1)`$ and $`S(\mu _1)`$ do not vanish . Let $`\chi `$ be any character of $`V`$. If $`\widehat{\omega }_K(\chi )=0`$, then $`\widehat{\omega }_{T(K)S(K)}(\chi )=0`$. If $`\widehat{\omega }_{T(K)S(K)}(\chi )=0`$, then since $`\widehat{\mu }_1(\chi )0`$, we have $`\widehat{\omega }_K(\chi )=0`$. Thus, $`\omega _K=\omega _{T(K)S(K)}`$, that is, $`K=T(K)S(K)`$. Iteratively we prove that $`_{l(\alpha )=n}\alpha (K)=K`$ for any $`n1`$. Since $`\alpha (v)e`$ as $`l(\alpha )\mathrm{}`$, $`KU`$ for any compact open subgroup in $`V`$. Since $`V`$ is totally disconnected, $`K=(e)`$. Thus, $`\mu `$ has no idempotent factors.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_m`$ be contractions on a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over real or $`_p`$ such that $`T_iT_j=T_jT_i`$ for all $`1i,jm`$. Suppose $`\mu =T_1(\mu )T_2(\mu )\mathrm{}T_m(\mu )𝒫(V)`$. Then $`\mu `$ is infinitely divisible without idempotent factors. In particular, autophage measures on $`V`$ are infinitely divisible measures without idempotent factors.

###### Proof

We will treat the case when $`m=2`$, the general case may be proved in a similar fashion. Let $`k1`$ be such that $`T^k<1`$ and $`S^k<1`$. Since $`T`$ and $`S`$ commute with each other, we get that $`\mu =_{i=0}^{2k}T^{2ki}S^i(\mu )`$. It is easy to see that $`T^{2ki}S^i<1`$ for any $`0i2k`$. By Proposition 4.1, we get that $`\mu `$ is an infinitely divisible measure without idempotent factors.

## 5 Absolute continuity

We now introduce a nondegeneracy condition which will be needed for absolute continuity. We say that a measure $`\mu `$ on a finite-dimensional vector space over real or $`_p`$ is full if $`\mu `$ is not supported on a coset of a proper subspace. We now prove a result on the Fourier transform of full measures.

###### Lemma 5.1

Let $`\mu `$ be a full measure on a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over real or $`_p`$ and $`\widehat{\mu }`$ be its Fourier transform. Suppose $`\mu =T(\mu )S(\mu )`$ for some contractions $`T`$ and $`S`$. Also, if $`T`$ and $`S`$ are strict-contractions or $`T`$ and $`S`$ commute with each other. Then $`|\widehat{\mu }(v)|1`$ for all $`vV(e)`$.

###### Proof

Here we identify the dual of $`V`$ with itself. Let $`\lambda =\mu \stackrel{ˇ}{\mu }`$. Then it is easy to see that

1. $`\mu `$ is full if and only if $`\lambda `$ is not contained in a proper subspace,
2. for any $`vV(e)`$, $`|\widehat{\mu }(v)|=1`$ if and only if $`\widehat{\lambda }(v)=1`$.

In view of this it is enough to show that $`\widehat{\lambda }(v)1`$ for any $`v(e)`$. Suppose $`\widehat{\lambda }(v)=1`$ for some $`ve`$. Then the closed subgroup, say $`H`$, generated by the support of $`\lambda `$ is a proper subgroup (in fact, $`\lambda `$ is supported on the annihilator of the subgroup of all $`vV`$ such that $`\widehat{\lambda }(v)=1=|\widehat{\lambda }(v)|`$). By assumption, there exists contractions $`T`$ and $`S`$ such that $`\lambda =T(\lambda )S(\lambda )`$. This implies that $`T(H)H`$, since $`e`$ is in the support of $`\lambda `$. Let $`H^0`$ be the maximal vector subspace contained in $`H`$. Then $`T(H^0)H^0`$. Since $`T`$ is an automorphism, $`T(H^0)=H^0`$. Similarly, we claim that $`S(H^0)=H^0`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ denotes image of $`\lambda `$ in $`V/H^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ be the factor automorphisms on $`V/H^0`$ corresponding to $`T`$ and $`S`$. We now claim that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\delta _e`$. Suppose $`V`$ is a real vector space. Then $`H/H^0`$ is discrete and hence countable. By Proposition 2.1, $`\lambda `$ degenerates and hence $`\lambda =\delta _e`$. Suppose $`V`$ is a $`p`$-adic vector space. Then $`H/H^0=K`$ say, is a compact subgroup. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is autophage, we have $`\stackrel{~}{T}(K)\stackrel{~}{S}(K)=K`$. This implies that $`\omega _K=T(\omega _K)S(\omega _K)`$. By Proposition 4.1 or by Theorem 4.1, $`K=(e)`$, that is $`\lambda =\delta _e`$. This implies that $`\mu `$ is supported on a coset of a proper subspace $`H^0`$.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_m`$ be a finite-set of strict-contractions on a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over real or $`_p`$. Suppose $`\mu `$ is a full probability measure on $`V`$ such that $`\mu =T_1(\mu )T_2(\mu )\mathrm{}T_m(\mu )`$. Then $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is an integrable function.

###### Proof

We treat the case when $`m=2`$, the general case may be proved in a similar fashion. Let $`T`$ and $`S`$ be two strict-contractions such that $`\mu =T(\mu )S(\mu )`$. Let $`T^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ be the adjoint of $`T`$ and $`S`$ respectively. Let $`t=T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}^1`$ and $`s=S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}^1`$. Let $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$ be such that $`t^r+s^r=1.`$

Let $`\widehat{\mu }`$ be the Fourier transform of $`\mu `$. By Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.2 of , $`\widehat{\mu }`$ does not vanish. Thus, the function $`g`$ defined by

$$g(v)=v^r\mathrm{log}(|\widehat{\mu }(v)|)$$

for any $`vV(e)`$ is a continuous function. Since $`\mu `$ is full, by Lemma 5.1, $`|\widehat{\mu }(v)|1`$ for any $`vV(e)`$. Thus, $`g`$ does not vanish.

Now for any $`vV(e)`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g(v)& =& v^r[\mathrm{log}|\widehat{\mu }(T^{}(v))|+\mathrm{log}|\widehat{\mu }(S^{}(v))|]\hfill \\ & =& (\frac{T^{}(v)}{v})^rg(T^{}(v))+(\frac{S^{}(v)}{v})^rg(S^{}(v))\hfill \\ & & t^rg(T^{}(v))+s^rg(S^{}(v))\hfill \end{array}$$

since for any automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`V`$ and $`vV(e)`$, $`v\alpha ^1\alpha (v)`$. Thus, for any $`v0`$ in $`V`$, we have $`g(v)\mathrm{min}\{g(T^{}(v)),g(S^{}(v))\}`$. For each $`vV(e)`$, we now define for $`n0`$, $`\alpha _nsg(T^{},S^{})`$ inductively as follows: $`\alpha _0=I`$ and for $`n1`$, $`\alpha _n`$ to be the either $`T^{}\alpha _{n1}`$ or $`S^{}\alpha _{n1}`$ if $`g(T^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))g(S^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))`$ or $`g(S^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))g(T^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))`$ respectively. This implies that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g(\alpha _{n1}(v))& & t^rg(T^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))+s^rg(S^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{min}\{g(T^{}\alpha _{n1}(v)),g(S^{}\alpha _{n1}(v))\}\hfill \\ & =& g(\alpha _n(v))\hfill \end{array}$$

for all $`n1`$. Thus, for each $`vV(e)`$, there exists a sequence $`(\alpha _n)`$ (possibly, depending on $`v`$) in $`sg(T^{},S^{})`$ such that $`l(\alpha _n)=n`$, $`\alpha _n=T^{}\alpha _{n1}\mathrm{or}S^{}\alpha _{n1}`$ and $`g(v)g(\alpha _n(v))`$.

Let $`c=\mathrm{min}\{g(v)\mathrm{min}\{t,s\}v1\}`$. We now claim that $`0<cg(v)`$ for any $`v>1`$. Since $`g`$ does not vanish, $`c>0`$. Let $`v`$ be such that $`v>1`$. Let $`\alpha _nsg(T^{},S^{})`$ be such that $`l(\alpha _n)=n`$, $`\alpha _n=T^{}\alpha _{n1}orS^{}\alpha _{n1}`$ and $`g(\alpha _n(v))g(v)`$. Then we get that $`\alpha _n(v)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`g(v)g(\alpha _n(v))`$ for all $`n`$. Let $`k`$ be such that $`\alpha _k(v)1`$ but $`\alpha _{k1}(v)>1`$. Since the roles of $`T`$ and $`S`$ are similar, we may assume that $`\alpha _k=T^{}\alpha _{k1}`$. So,

$$1<\alpha _{k1}(v)T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\alpha _k(v)$$

and hence $`t=T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}^1\alpha _k(v)1`$. This shows that

$$g(v)c$$

for all $`v`$ with $`v>1`$. It follows from the definition of $`g`$ that

$$|\widehat{\mu }(v)|\mathrm{exp}(cv^r)$$

for all $`v`$ with $`v>1`$ and for some constant $`c>0`$. Thus, $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is an integrable function.

###### Theorem 5.1

Let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_m`$ be contractions on a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over real or $`_p`$ such that $`T_iT_j=T_jT_i`$ for all $`1i,jm`$. Suppose $`\mu =T_1(\mu )T_2(\mu )\mathrm{}T_m(\mu )𝒫(V)`$ is full. Then $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density. In particular, a full autophage measure on $`V`$ is absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density.

###### Remark 5.1

Any question regarding absolute continuity should be addressed only in the class of full measures because any non-full measure is obviously not absolutely continuous. In view of this the assumption fullness is necessary in Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 5.1.

###### Proof

Arguing as in Theorem 4.1, we may assume that each $`T_i`$ is strict-contraction. Now by Proposition 5.1, we get that $`\widehat{\mu }`$, the Fourier transform of $`\mu `$ is integrable. This shows by inverse Fourier transform that the measure $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density.

We now prove the absolute continuity of certain semistable measures.

###### Corollary 5.1

Let $`\mu `$ be a full measure on a finite-dimensional vector space over real or $`_p`$. Suppose $`\mu `$ is $`(T,n)`$-semistable. Then $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density.

###### Proof

Suppose $`\mu `$ is $`(T,n)`$-semistable, that is, $`T(\mu ^n)=\mu `$. Suppose $`V`$ is a real vector space, then since $`\mu `$ is full by , we get that $`T`$ is a contraction. By Theorem 5.1, $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density. Suppose $`V`$ is a vector space over $`_p`$. Then by , there exist a $`xV`$ and a continuous convolution semigroup $`(\mu _t)`$ in $`𝒫(V)`$ such that $`T(\mu _t)=\mu _{nt}`$ for all $`t>0`$ and $`\mu _1=x\mu `$. It is enough to prove $`\mu _1`$ is absolutely continuous. By , there exist a compact subgroup $`K`$ of $`V`$ and a convolution semigroup $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t`$ in $`𝒫(C(T))`$ where $`C(T)=\{xVT^n(x)e\}`$ such that $`\mu _t=\omega _k\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t`$, $`T(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_t)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{nt}`$ and $`C(T)K=(e)`$. Since $`\mu `$ is full, $`V`$ is spanned by $`C(T)`$ and $`K`$. Let $`W`$ be the vector space spanned by $`K`$. Then $`K`$ is open in $`W`$ and $`C(T)W=(e)`$. Thus, $`V`$ is the direct product of $`C(T)`$ and $`W`$. Since $`\mu _1=\omega _K\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$, it is enough to show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ is absolutely continuous. Since $`\mu `$ is full, $`\mu _1`$ is full and hence $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ is full in $`C(T)`$. By Theorem 5.1, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ is absolutely continuous with a bounded continuous density.

###### Acknowledgement

I wish to thank ICTP, Trieste, Italy for providing financial support and all facilities during my stay at ICTP. I also wish to thank NBHM, India for providing travel grant to visit ICTP.

Present address: Mathematics Section, ICTP, Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste. Italy.

e-amil: creraja@ictp.trieste.it

Permanent address: Stat-Math Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, 8th Mile Mysore Road, R. V. College Post, Bangalore - 560 059. India.

e-amil: creraja@isibang.ac.in


text:
# Quantum continuous measurements, dynamical role of information and restricted path integrals

## 1 Introduction

Theory of quantum measurements is one of the most interesting and in a sense mysterious topics in quantum mechanics. In last decades essential progress in understanding quantum measurements was connected with the concept of decoherence. The phenomenon of decoherence consists in loss of quantum phases in the superposition existed before the measurement, see  for a review. Decoherence transforms an initial pure state (presented by a state vector, or wave function) to a mixed state (presented by a density matrix). Continuous quantum measurement (gradual decoherence) may be presented by a time-dependent density matrix. In Markowian approximation this density matrix satisfies a differential equation called master equation. Generic form of master equations was found by Lindblad .

It is important that a quantum open system may be considered to be continuously measured by its environment even if the latter is not constructed for measurement. Therefore, theory of continuously measured systems is in fact theory of open systems. We give here a short review of theory of continuous quantum measurements based on restricted path integrals (RPI).

Decoherence is caused by entanglement (quantum correlation) between the measured system and its environment (measuring medium or reservoir). The density matrix presents the result of decoherence in a non-selective way when the measurement readout (final state of the environment) is not known. The same physical process of measurement may be presented in the selective way, by a state vector conditioned by the measurement readout.

In case of a continuous measurement (gradual decoherence) the time-dependent readout-conditioned state vector may be presented by RPI which in Markowian approximation satisfies Schrödinger equation with a non-Hermitean Hamiltonian depending on the measurement readout, see  for a review.

RPI approach to continuous measurement follows from first principles of quantum mechanics in the form of Feynman’s path integrals but may also be derived by ordinary quantum-mechanical methods. The approach is model-independent: RPI depends only on the information supplied by the measurement but not on the concrete measuring medium. Some features of RPI point out that the evolution of a continuously measured (decohering) system is a fundamental type of evolution. Particularly, RPI approach reveals the dynamical role of the information escaping the system.

RPI differs from the usual Feynman path integral by a weight functional in the integrand. Positive weight functionals describe continuous measurements which result in minimal disturbance of the measured system’s state (given the information supplied by the measurement). Those weight functionals which contain also phase shifts, determine non-minimally disturbing measurements leading to dissipation of the measured system.

## 2 Continuous measurements and RPI

Any measurement of a quantum system results from interacting this system with its environment. The direct way to describe the evolution of the measured system is to find the time-dependent density matrix of the closed system consisting of the system of interest and its environment and then trace out all degrees of freedom of the environment. The resulting reduced density matrix describes the measured system as an open system i.e. with the influence of the environment taken into account. This description is non-selective since all possible states of the environment (all possible measurement readouts) are accounted in it, with no selection of one of them. Examples of continuous measurements considered in this way may be found in .

It is however possible to derive the evolution law of a continuously measured system phenomenologically, making use of no explicit model of the environment and interaction with it. We shall show how this may be done with the help of restricted path integrals (RPI), see  for the review of the method. The resulting description will be selective, expressed in terms of a state vector (wave function) satisfying Schrödinger equation with the complex potential depending on the measurement readout. A non-selective description in the form of a master equation for the density matrix may be obtained then by integration over all possible measurement readouts.

According to Feynman’s formulation of quantum mechanics, the propagator (probability amplitude for transition from one point to another) of a closed quantum system may be expressed in the form of a path integral

$$U_t(q^{\prime \prime },q^{})=d[p]_q^{}^{q^{\prime \prime }}d[q]e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_0^t(p\dot{q}H(p,q,t))𝑑t}$$
(1)
where the so-called phase-space, or Hamiltonian, representation of the path integral is used. Integration must be performed in all paths $`[p]`$ in the momentum space and in those paths $`[q]`$ in the configuration space which have the given end points. The observables $`p`$, $`q`$ may be multidimensional.

Details of the definition are not important for us here. The only thing we need is that the propagator $`U_t(q^{\prime \prime },q^{})`$ and the corresponding time-dependent wave function $`\psi _t(q^{\prime \prime })`$ satisfy Schrödinger equation. If we introduce the evolution operator $`U_t`$ as an integral operator with the kernel $`U_t(q^{\prime \prime },q^{})`$, then the evolution of the system may be presented, correspondingly by the state vector or density matrix, as follows:

$$|\psi _t=U_t|\psi _0,\rho _t=U_t\rho _0U_t^{}.$$
(2)
The ideology which was developed by Feynman as a background of the path-integral approach is following. The probability amplitude for the system to evolve along the given path is equal to the integrand in (1) (imaginary exponential of the action in units of the Plank constant). However it is in principle impossible to know for a closed system what path is chosen by it. Therefore, we have to sum up the amplitudes corresponding to all paths, hence Eq. (1) for the total probability amplitude (propagator).

If the system is continuously measured, this ideology directly leads to RPI. Indeed, let a continuous measurement is performed on the system during the time interval $`[0,t]`$. Then the measurement readout supplies some information about the path chosen by the system in its evolution. If $`\alpha `$ is the set of paths compatible with this information, then the path integral has to be restricted onto the set $`\alpha `$. The set $`\alpha `$ is called quantum corridor.

Instead, we may integrate over all paths but with the corresponding weight functional in the integrand. This weight functional $`w_\alpha [p,q]`$ has to be equal to unity for the paths $`[p,q]`$ belonging to $`\alpha `$ and zero otherwise. Generalizing, we may describe the measurement by any smooth functional $`w_\alpha [p,q]`$. Although no set of paths can present this situation adequately, we may in this case speak of the ‘quantum corridor with indistinct, fuzzy boundaries’. In fact, this is a more realistic description, since real measurements give information of just this type. $`\alpha `$ will be interpreted in this case either as a measurement readout or as a quantum corridor presented by $`w_\alpha [p,q]`$.

As a result, we have the following propagator for the system undergoing a continuous measurement resulting in the measurement readout $`\alpha `$:

$$U_t^\alpha (q^{\prime \prime },q^{})=d[p]_q^{}^{q^{\prime \prime }}d[q]w_\alpha [p,q]e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_0^t(p\dot{q}H(p,q,t))𝑑t}.$$
(3)
The evolution of the system is then presented as follows:

$$|\psi _t^\alpha =U_t^\alpha |\psi _0,\rho _t^\alpha =U_t^\alpha \rho _0\left(U_t^\alpha \right)^{}$$
(4)
The system undergoing the measurement (therefore decohering) may thus be presented by wave functions, or state vectors, but these wave functions are conditioned by the measurement readouts $`\alpha `$. Physically a measurement readout is nothing else than a state of the environment, but here measurement readouts are presented by weight functionals $`w_\alpha [p,q]`$ i.e. expressed in terms of paths of the measured system. This is often advantageous.

Instead of a single propagator and a single unitary evolution operator for a closed system, a continuously measured system is presented by the set of partial propagators (3) and partial evolution operators $`U_t^\alpha `$, one for each measurement readout $`\alpha `$. These operators are not unitary, so that the state vectors and density matrices (4) are not normalized. Instead, the square norm of the state vector or trace of the density matrix gives the probability density of the corresponding measurement readout:

$$P(\alpha )=\psi _t^\alpha ^2=tr\rho _t^\alpha $$
(5)
The sum of the partial density matrices corresponding to all possible measurement readouts gives the total density matrix

$$\rho _t=𝑑\alpha \rho _t^\alpha =𝑑\alpha U_t^\alpha \rho _0\left(U_t^\alpha \right)^{}$$
(6)
presenting the same measurement non-selectively. The total density matrix $`\rho _t`$ should be normalized. This is the case if the generalized unitarity condition

$$𝑑\alpha \left(U_T^\alpha \right)^{}U_T^\alpha =\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(7)
is fulfilled. Eq. (7) is a condition on the weight functionals $`w_\alpha `$ and the measure $`d\alpha `$ which provides consistency of the definitions.

Of course, one may integrate over some subset of the measurement readouts, providing a partially non-selective description of the measurement. In practice only various partially non-selective descriptions are realistic because the measurement readout $`\alpha `$ never can be known precisely.

## 3 Monitoring an observable

Let us consider a special case of continuous measurements, monitoring an observable. An evident example is monitoring the coordinate $`q`$. The measurement readout is then expressed by function $`a(t^{})`$, $`t^{}[0,t]`$, and interpreted as the statement that at time $`t^{}`$ the coordinate $`q`$ has the value which differs from $`a(t^{})`$ not more than by the entity $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ characterizing the measurement accuracy. The same may be expressed as follows: the system evolves along some path $`[q]`$ (in the coordinate space) which lies in the corridor $`\alpha `$ of the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ with the middle line $`[a]=\{a(t^{})|0t^{}t\}`$. Such a measurement is described by RPI taken over the quantum corridor $`\alpha `$.

In generic case any observable $`A(p,q)`$ is monitored instead of the coordinate. The measurement readout expressed by the curve $`[a]=\{a(t^{})|0t^{}t\}`$ means that the value $`A(t^{})=A(p(t^{}),q(t^{}))`$ of the observable $`A(p,q)`$ at time $`t^{}`$ differs from $`a(t^{})`$ not more than by $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ (the precision, or resolution, of the measurement). RPI must be taken over the set $`\alpha `$ of paths $`[p,q]`$ determined by these conditions.

Of course, a more realistic description of the measurement is given by the corridor with fuzzy boundaries. It is expressed by a weight functional $`w_\alpha [q]`$ for monitoring the coordinate and by $`w_\alpha [p,q]`$ in the general case. The functional $`w_\alpha [p,q]`$ for monitoring $`A(p,q)`$ has to be approximately equal to unity if the curve $`A(t^{})=A(p(t^{}),q(t^{}))`$, $`t^{}[0,t]`$, is close to $`a(t^{})`$ and approximately equal to zero if these curves are far from each other.

The scale of closeness is $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$, but the definition of the ‘distance’ between curves may depend on the concrete type of the measurement to be described. It is often reasonable to present monitoring by the Gaussian functional

$$w_{[a]}[p,q]=\mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa _0^t[A(t^{})a(t^{})]^2𝑑t^{}\right)$$
(8)
where $`\kappa `$ determines the strength, or resolution, of the measurement.

In principle $`\kappa `$ may depend on time, then it has to be in the integrand, but for permanent conditions of the monitoring $`\kappa =\mathrm{const}`$. If the interval $`t`$ of measurement is fixed, the strength of the measurement $`\kappa `$ is connected with the ‘width of the corridor’ $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ by the equation $`\kappa =1/(t\mathrm{\Delta }a^2)`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ is the mean square deviation of the curve $`A(t)`$ from the middle line of the corridor $`a(t)`$. Therefore, for a constant strength of the measurement, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ decreases with time inversely proportional to $`\sqrt{t}`$.

The first, purely mathematical, reason to choose a Gaussian weight functional is that this leads (in case of a quadratic Hamiltonian) to Gaussian path integrals which may be precisely evaluated. There is however a more deep physical reason. As is shown in the framework of a special model \[3, Chapter 8\] and is believed to be valid generally, a Gaussian weight functional appears each time if the continuous measurement consists of a large number of very weak short measurements. This may be considered as a quantum version of the Central Limiting Theorem from probability theory.

If the Gaussian weight functional (8) is accepted for monitoring, then RPI (3) takes the form

$`U_t^{[a]}(q^{\prime \prime },q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d[p]d[q]\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}(p\dot{q}H(p,q,t))dt`$ (9)
$``$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle _0^T}(A(p,q,t)a(t))^2dt\}`$
This RPI is equal to Feynman path integral (1) but with the Hamiltonian

$$H_{[a]}(p,q,t)=H(p,q,t)i\kappa \mathrm{}\left(A(p,q,t)a(t)\right)^2$$
(10)
containing (in comparizon with the initial Hamiltonian) an additional imaginary term. The propagator (9) and the corresponding conditioned wave function (state vector) $`|\psi _t^{[a]}`$ satisfy the effective Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{}{t}|\psi _t^{[a]}=\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}\kappa \left(\widehat{A}a(t)\right)^2\right]|\psi _t^{[a]}$$
(11)
The transition to the non-selective description of the measurement is performed by summing up the partial density matrices over all possible measurement readouts. In case of monitoring, this means integrating $`\rho _t^{[a]}`$ over all curves $`[a]`$. The resulting total density matrix may be shown to satisfy the following equation (which is a special case of Lindblad equation):

$$\frac{}{t}\rho _t=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H},\rho _t]\frac{1}{2}\kappa [\widehat{A},[\widehat{A},\rho _t]]$$
(12)
## 4 Non-minimally disturbing monitoring

We shall consider now a more general non-minimally disturbing monitoring \[3, Sect. 5.2.3\]. It is described by a more general weight functional than (8). The functional (8) damps out those paths which are not compatible with the information given by the monitoring. This leads to such a disturbance of the measured system’s state which is unavoidable for the measurement supplying the given information. Besides this, some additional (non-minimal) disturbance may be performed during the measurement.

For example when the coordinate is measured, the momentum is necessarily disturbed, but, besides this, the measurement of the coordinate may be accompanied by additional disturbance of the coordinate.

A non-minimally disturbing monitoring of observable $`A(p,q)`$ may be described by a Gaussian weight functional similar to (8) but with an additional imaginary term in the exponent. If we assume that this additional term is linear in the measurement readout $`a(t)`$, then the weight functional is

$$w_{[a]}[p,q]=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_0^t𝑑t^{}\left[\kappa \left(Aa(t^{})\right)^2\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\lambda a(t^{})B+C\right)\right]\right\}$$
(13)
where $`A=A(p,q)`$, $`B=B(p,q)`$, $`C=C(p,q)`$ are arbitrary observables. This type of measurement leads to dissipation of the measured system .

This may be shown as follows. If the partial evolution operator $`U_t^{[a]}`$ is RPI with weight functional (13), then the partial and total density matrices

$$\rho _t^{[a]}=U_t^{[a]}\rho _0\left(U_t^{[a]}\right)^{},\rho _t=d[a]\rho _t^{[a]}$$
(14)
describe the measurement, correspondingly, selectively and non-selectively. It turns out  that the total density matrix satisfies the master equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H}+\widehat{C},\rho ]\frac{\kappa }{2}[\widehat{A},[\widehat{A},\rho ]]\frac{\lambda ^2}{8\kappa \mathrm{}^2}[\widehat{B},[\widehat{B},\rho ]]\frac{i\lambda }{2\mathrm{}}[\widehat{B},[\widehat{A},\rho ]_+].$$
(15)
(we omit index $`t`$ in $`\rho _t`$). With the notation $`\widehat{l}=\widehat{A}i\frac{\lambda }{2\kappa \mathrm{}}\widehat{B}`$, we have

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H}+\widehat{C}i\frac{\kappa \mathrm{}}{4}\left(\widehat{l}^2\widehat{l}^2\right),\rho ]\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(\widehat{l}^{}\widehat{l}\rho 2\widehat{l}\rho \widehat{l}^{}+\rho \widehat{l}\widehat{l}^{}\right)$$
(16)
This equation is of Lindblad form  with a single Lindblad operator $`\widehat{l}`$. The original Hamiltonian is renormalized by the measurement procedure.111The Lindblad master equation of generic form, i.e. with a number of Lindblad operators, will result if the corresponding number of observables undergo non-minimally disturbing monitoring.

From the physical point of view the measured system turns out to be dissipative. For example, if $`\widehat{H}`$ is a Hamiltonian of the harmonic oscillator, $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{p}`$, $`\widehat{B}=\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{C}=0`$ (this means that the oscillator’s momentum is monitored and non-minimally disturbed), then the resulting master equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H},\rho ]\frac{\kappa }{2}[\widehat{p},[\widehat{p},\rho ]]\frac{\lambda ^2\omega ^2}{8\kappa \mathrm{}^2}[\widehat{q},[\widehat{q},\rho ]]\frac{i\lambda \omega }{2\mathrm{}}[\widehat{q},[\widehat{p},\rho ]_+]$$
(17)
is the well known master equation for a Brownian motion of the harmonic oscillator . The Brownian motion of the oscillator is thus interpreted as the effect of monitoring the momentum by a continuously acting environment (reservoir). The friction coefficient of the oscillator is $`\gamma =2\mathrm{}\kappa /m\omega `$.

## 5 Conclusion

We reviewed here RPI approach to theory of continuous quantum measurements  which is especially important since it may be considered as theory of decoherence of open quantum systems in general .

Being model-independent, this approach is efficient in various applications (e.g. measurements on harmonic oscillators, visualization of a level transition and measurements of quantum fields). Besides, this approach makes evident fundamental features of the phenomenon of decoherence.

The most important of these features is the dynamical role of information: the evolution of a continuously measured (decohering) system does not depend of details of the measuring medium, but is determined by the measurement readout, i.e. by the information recorded in the environment.

One more remarkable feature is that RPI theory of measurement follows from first principles of quantum mechanics (from Feynman path-integral theory). Therefore, quantum mechanics includes theory of measurements and, contrary to the wide-spread opinion, is conceptually closed. The only unsolved conceptual problems in quantum mechanics are those connected with the role of consciousness in quantum measurements .

Presentation of the measured (decohering) open systems by RPI is universal. Although monitoring may be presented simpler, by Schrödinger equation with a complex Hamiltonian, but this is impossible for the measurements which are ‘integral in time’. Even monitoring turns out to be integral in time in the non-Markowian approximation: the number $`a(t^{})`$ is actually not the value of $`A`$ at time $`t^{}`$ but (owing to inertial properties of the measuring medium) the average of the values of $`A`$ over some period containing $`t^{}`$. The weight functional is then more complicated than (8) or (13) \[3, Sect. 5.3\] and RPI cannot be reduced to a differential equation.


text:
# Charged hadron transverse momentum distributions in Au+Au collisions at √𝑠__{𝑁𝑁}= 200 GeV

## Abstract

We present transverse momentum distributions of charged hadrons produced in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 200 GeV. The evolution of the spectra for transverse momenta $`p_T`$ from 0.25 to 5 GeV/C is studied as a function of collision centrality. We find a significant change of the spectral shape between proton-antiproton and peripheral Au+Au collisions. When comparing peripheral to central Au+Au collisions, we find that the yields at the highest $`p_T`$ exhibit approximate scaling with the number of participating nucleons, rather than scaling with the number of binary collisions.

In this paper, the yield of charged hadrons produced in collisions of gold nuclei at an energy of $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200`$ GeV is presented as a function of collision centrality and transverse momentum $`p_T`$. The data were taken with the PHOBOS detector  during the second run of the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. In the theoretical analysis of particle production in hadronic and nuclear collisions, a distinction is often made between the relative contributions of “hard” parton-parton scattering processes and “soft” processes. Hard processes are expected to contribute an increasingly larger fraction of particle production with increasing collision energy and at higher $`p_T`$ of the produced particles.

Collisions of heavy nuclei offer ideal conditions to test our understanding of this picture, as “hard” processes are expected to scale with the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions $`N_{coll}`$, whereas “soft” particle production is expected to exhibit scaling with the number of participating nucleons $`N_{part}`$. In the Glauber picture of nuclear collisions, $`N_{coll}`$ approximately scales as $`(N_{part})^{4/3}`$. For central collisions of Au nuclei, one therefore obtains an increase in the ratio of $`N_{coll}/(N_{part}/2)`$ by a factor of six, relative to proton-proton collisions.

In Fig. 2 we present the invariant cross-section of charged hadrons as a function of transverse momentum for particles with a rapidity of $`0.2<y_\pi <1.4`$ assuming the pion mass for calculating $`y_\pi `$. The cross-sections were corrected for the geometrical acceptance of the detector, the reconstruction efficiency, the distortion due to binning and momentum resolution, “ghost” tracks, secondaries and weak decays .

Data are shown for 6 centrality bins, with $`65<N_{part}<344`$ corresponding, in the Glauber picture, to $`107<N_{coll}<1050`$. The increase with centrality of the integrated yields, over the studied centrality range, is consistent with the centrality evolution of the mid-rapidity particle density presented in .

The top left panel in Fig. 2 shows the ratio of the most peripheral bin ($`N_{part}=65\pm 4)`$ divided by $`N_{part}/2\times f(p_T)`$, where $`f(p_T)`$ is a fit of the invariant cross-section in proton-antiproton collisions at the same energy . This comparison shows that already in Au+Au collisions with an impact parameter of about 10 fm, the spectral shape is dramatically modified relative to that in $`p+\overline{p}`$ collisions. It is worth noting that the ratio $`N_{coll}/N_{part}/2`$ increases by a factor of about three from $`p+\overline{p}`$ to peripheral Au+Au collisions. The other panels in Fig. 2 show the evolution of same ratio upto the most central bin ($`N_{part}=344\pm 12)`$. We observe only a moderate change in spectral shape, relative to $`p+\overline{p}`$, when going from peripheral to central events.

Fig. 4 shows the evolution of the spectra with centrality. The spectra, normalized by $`N_{part}/2`$, in the six centrality bins have been divided by a fit to the normalized spectrum measured in the most peripheral bin. The centrality range in the Au+Au collisions covers a change in $`N_{coll}/N_{part}/2`$ by about a factor of two. It is remarkable that the change in spectral shape over this range of centralities is small compared to that between peripheral Au+Au collisions and $`p+\overline{p}`$ collisions. In particular at high $`p_T`$, above 3 GeV/c, the yields scale to a good approximation as $`N_{part}/2`$ as a function of centrality.

Fig. 4 shows the scaling behaviour of the charged hadron relative yields in Au+Au and $`p+\overline{p}`$ collisions for different values of $`p_T`$. The yields were determined by interpolating the data shown in Fig. 2 using power law fits.

The observed trends can be contrasted with the expectation that particle production should be characterized by a change from $`N_{part}`$ scaling at low $`p_T`$ to $`N_{coll}`$ scaling at high $`p_T`$. No corresponding increase in particle production per participant at $`p_T=3`$ GeV/c and above is observed. Rather, the yields in this region scale approximately with the number of participating nucleons. Upcoming studies of d+Au collisions at RHIC will provide further insight into the modification of particle spectra in a nuclear environment.

This work was partially supported by US DoE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER-404802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, W-31-109-ENG-38. NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish groups were partially supported by KBN grant 2-P03B-103203. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.