format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The electroweak production of single top quarks, despite being smaller in rate than it’s strong interaction counterpart — $`t\overline{t}`$ pair production, offers many physics possibilities for the Tevatron Run II and the LHC. Direct measurement of $`|V_{tb}|^2`$ and sensitivity beyond the Standard Model are two examples ?. It is also a background to some signals for the Higgs boson and various types of new physics. Total rates for the $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel production processes have been calculated?,? to next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbative QCD.

Herein we give first results in our ongoing effort to calculate fully differential NLO QCD corrections to single top quark final states at hadron colliders. The advantages of calculating cross sections to NLO in a fully differential manner are well known in general. For example, only at NLO does a jet definition enter non-trivially. Additionally, systematic errors are always reduced when one can predict the cross in the experimentally visible region, as opposed to extrapolating the measured cross section to the full phase space to get a total rate.

## 2 Method

The results presented below are from a calculation performed using the phase space slicing method ?. Briefly, two cutoffs are used to isolate the regions containing soft and collinear singularities from the remainder of the three-body phase space. The three-body squared matrix elements are integrated over these singular regions analytically. The soft singularities cancel upon addition of the virtual contributions, and the remaining collinear singularities are factorized into the parton distributions. The integrations over the singularity-free portions of the three-body phase space are performed using Monte Carlo methods. When all of the contributions are combined at the histogramming stage the various cutoff dependences cancel, since the cutoffs merely mark the boundary between the regions where the integrations were performed using analytic or Monte Carlo methods.

## 3 Results

Using the method described in the previous section we have calculated the corrections to both $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel single-top-quark production. Due to space limitations only $`s`$-channel results will be shown, and those only superficially. Full details are forthcoming ?.

A necessary check on the results based on this method is that infrared-safe physical observables are independent of the cut-offs used to delineate phase space, provided they are chosen small enough. The total cross section is an infrared-safe observable. Shown in Fig. (3) is the NLO correction to the total cross section as a function of the soft cut-off $`\delta _s`$ summed over $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ final states for the $`s`$-channel production process compared with the known result? using CTEQ4M? parton distribution functions at a $`\sqrt{S}=2`$ TeV proton-antiproton machine. The mass factorization and renormalization scales are taken to be $`\mu _f=\mu _r=m_{\mathrm{top}}=175`$ GeV. The mass of the bottom quark was neglected and that of the $`W`$ gauge boson was taken to be $`80.4`$ GeV. The Monte Carlo result for the NLO correction is within one percent of the analytical result of $`0.264pb`$ for $`\delta _s<10^3`$ implying better than a third of a percent agreement for the full NLO result of $`0.922pb`$.

Shown in Fig. (3) are the leading order (lower curves) and full next-to-leading order (upper curves) rapidity (left) and transverse momentum (right) distributions of the top quark produced via the $`s`$-channel process. These curves were made using the same inputs as above, and no other cuts were applied. These results are also cut-off independent, as expected. Taking the ratio of NLO and LO the corrections are observed to be relatively independent of the rapidity and transverse momentum of the top quark, a somewhat atypical, but serendipitous (from the event generation point of view), situation that warrants further investigation.

In conclusion, we have performed a fully differential calculation of QCD corrections to electroweak production of single top quarks. The method used allows for jet definitions and experimental cuts. The corresponding computer code passes the necessary check of reproducing the previously known total rate. First examination of the rapidity and transverse momentum of the top quark shows the corrections to be flat relative to leading order. Additional phenomenological studies are in order. Further work is in progress on the corrections to $`tbjet`$ final states which will give a comprehensive set of tools for studying single-top-quark production at future hadron-hadron colliders.

This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division, under contract W-31-109-Eng-38, and the Foundation for Fundamental Research of Matter (FOM) and the National Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), The Netherlands.

References


text:
# The ℓ¹-index of Tsirelson type spaces

## Abstract.

If $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are countable ordinals such that $`\beta 0`$, denote by $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ the completion of $`c_{00}`$ with respect to the implicitly defined norm

$$x=\mathrm{max}\{x_{c_0},\frac{1}{2}sup\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ix\},$$

where the supremum is taken over all finite subsets $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_j`$ of $``$ such that $`E_1<\mathrm{}<E_j`$ and $`\{\mathrm{min}E_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}E_j\}𝒮_\beta `$. It is shown that the Bourgain $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index of $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$is $`\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }`$. In particular, if $`\omega _1>\alpha =\omega ^{\alpha _1}m_1+\mathrm{}+\omega ^{\alpha _n}m_n`$ in Cantor normal form and $`\alpha _n`$ is not a limit ordinal, then there exists a Banach space whose $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index is $`\omega ^\alpha `$.

Let $`E`$ be a separable Banach space not containing a copy of $`\mathrm{}^1`$. The complexity of the $`\mathrm{}^1(n)`$’s inside $`E`$ may be measured by Bourgain’s $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index  or by locating so called $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^1`$-spreading models . It is easy to see that the existence of $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^1`$-spreading models implies a large $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index. In general, the implication is not reversible \[7, Remark 6.6(i)\]. However, suppose that $`T`$ is the standard Tsirelson space constructed by Figiel and Johnson  (the dual of the original Tsirelson space ). It is known that there is a constant $`K`$ such that every normalized block basic sequence in $`T`$ is $`K`$-equivalent to a subsequence of the unit vector basis of $`T`$ (see e.g., ). Using this observation, one can show that the existence of $`\mathrm{}^1`$-block trees in $`T`$ with large indices leads to the existence of large $`\mathrm{}_\alpha ^1`$-spreading models. The result can be used to calculate the $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index of $`T`$. In this paper, we show that a similar method can be applied to certain general Tsirelson type spaces. In particular, it is shown that if $`\omega _1>\alpha =\omega ^{\alpha _1}m_1+\mathrm{}+\omega ^{\alpha _n}m_n`$ in Cantor normal form and $`\alpha _n`$ is not a limit ordinal, then there exists a Banach space whose $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index is $`\omega ^\alpha `$. This gives a partial answer to Question 1 in .

If $`M`$ is an infinite subset of $``$, denote the set of all finite, respectively infinite subsets of $`M`$ by $`[M]^<\mathrm{},`$ respectively $`\left[M\right]`$. A subset $``$ of $`[]^<\mathrm{}`$ is *hereditary* if $`G`$ whenever $`GF`$. $``$ is *spreading* if whenever $`F=\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k\}`$ with $`n_1<\mathrm{}<n_k`$ and $`m_1<\mathrm{}<m_k`$ satisfies $`m_in_i`$ for $`1ik`$ then $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_k\}`$. $``$ is *compact* if it is compact in the product topology in $`2^{}`$. A set $``$ of finite subsets of $``$ is called *regular* if it has all three properties. If $`E`$ and $`F`$ are finite subsets of $``$, we write $`E<F`$, respectively $`EF`$, to mean $`\mathrm{max}E<\mathrm{min}F`$, respectively $`\mathrm{max}E\mathrm{min}F`$ ($`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$). We abbreviate $`\{n\}<E`$ and $`\{n\}E`$ to $`n<E`$ and $`nE`$ respectively. Given $`[]^<\mathrm{}`$, a sequence of finite subsets $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_n\}`$ of $``$ is said to be $``$-admissible if $`E_1<\mathrm{}<E_n`$ and $`\{\mathrm{min}E_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}E_n\}`$. If $``$ and $`𝒩`$ are regular subsets of $`[]^<\mathrm{}`$, we let

$$[𝒩]=\{_{i=1}^kF_i:F_i𝒩\text{ for all }i\text{ and }\{F_1,\mathrm{},F_k\}\text{-admissible}\}$$

and

$$(,𝒩)=\{MN:M<N,M\text{ and }N𝒩\}.$$

We also write $`^2`$ for $`(,).`$ Of primary importance are the Schreier classes as defined in . Let $`𝒮_0=\{\{n\}:n\}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`𝒮_1=\{F:|F|\mathrm{min}F\}`$. Here $`|F|`$ denotes the cardinality of $`F`$. The higher Schreier classes are defined inductively as follows. $`𝒮_{\alpha +1}=𝒮_1[𝒮_\alpha ]`$ for all $`\alpha <\omega _1`$. If $`\alpha `$ is a countable limit ordinal, choose a sequence $`(\alpha _n)`$ strictly increasing to $`\alpha `$ and set

$$𝒮_\alpha =\{F:F𝒮_{\alpha _n}\text{ for some }n|F|\}.$$

It is clear that $`𝒮_\alpha `$ is a regular family for all $`\alpha <\omega _1`$. If $`M=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{})`$ is a subsequence of $``$, let $`𝒮_\alpha (M)=\{\{m_i:iF\}:F𝒮_\alpha \}`$. Since $`𝒮_\alpha `$ is spreading, $`𝒮_\alpha (M)𝒮_\alpha `$.

Let $`c_{00}`$ be the space of all finitely supported sequences. If $`F\left[\right]^<\mathrm{}`$ and $`a=\left(a_n\right)c_{00}`$, let $`Fa=\left(b_n\right)c_{00},`$ where $`b_n=a_n`$ if $`nF`$ and $`0`$ otherwise; also set $`\sigma _F((a_n))=_{nF}|a_n|`$. Finally, if $`𝒮_0[]^<\mathrm{}`$, define an associated norm $`_{}`$ on $`c_{00}`$ by $`(a_n)_{}=sup_F\sigma _F((a_n))`$.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ be countable ordinals such that $`\beta 0.`$ Define $`_n`$ and $`_n^{},`$ $`n`$, inductively as follows. Let $`_0=_0^{}=_{𝒮_\alpha }.`$ If $`xc_{00},`$ set

$$x_{n+1}=\mathrm{max}\{x_n,sup\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ix_n:\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}𝒮_\beta \text{-admissible}\}\},$$

and

$$x_{n+1}^{}=\mathrm{max}\{x_n^{},sup\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ix_n^{}:\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\text{-admissible}\}\}.$$

Note that $`\left(x_n\right)_n`$ and $`\left(x_n^{}\right)_n`$ are increasing sequences majorized by the $`\mathrm{}^1`$-norm of $`x.`$ Let $`x_\stackrel{}{T}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}x_n`$ and $`x_\stackrel{}{T}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}x_n^{}.`$ Denote by $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ respectively the completion of $`c_{00}`$ under the norms $`_\stackrel{}{T}`$ and $`_\stackrel{}{T}.`$ Clearly, $`\stackrel{}{T}_{0,1}`$ is the Tsirelson space constructed by Figiel and Johnson  and $`\stackrel{}{T}_{0,\beta }`$ is the space denoted by $`T(𝒮_\beta ,\frac{1}{2})`$ in . The $`\mathrm{}^1`$-index of $`\stackrel{}{T}_{0,\beta }`$ is shown to be $`\omega ^{\beta \omega }`$ in . Here, we use a different argument to compute the $`\mathrm{}^1`$-indices of the spaces $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ The next proposition can be verified immediately.

###### Proposition 2.

The norms $`_\stackrel{}{T}`$ and $`_\stackrel{}{T}`$ satisfy the implicit equations

$$x_\stackrel{}{T}=\mathrm{max}\{x_{𝒮_\alpha },sup\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ix_\stackrel{}{T}:\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}𝒮_\beta \text{-admissible}\}\}$$

and

$$x_\stackrel{}{T}=\mathrm{max}\{x_{𝒮_\alpha },sup\{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ix_\stackrel{}{T}:\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\text{-admissible}\}\}$$

for all $`xc_{00}.`$

Proposition 4 is a close relative of Lemma 5 in . It is the key observation that allows us to reduce $`\mathrm{}^1`$-block trees on $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ to subsequences of the unit vector basis $`\left(e_n\right)`$ of $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ The following lemma is easily established by induction.

###### Lemma 3.

Suppose that $`n_1I_1<n_2I_2<\mathrm{}<n_kI_k`$ and $`\left|I_j\right|2`$ for $`1jk.`$ If $`\{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k\}𝒮_\beta `$ for some $`\beta <\omega _1,`$ then $`_{j=1}^kI_j\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2.`$

Obviously, the coordinate unit vectors $`\left(u_n\right)`$ is a normalized $`1`$-unconditional basis of $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ The *support* of an element $`x=a_nu_n\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is the set supp $`x=\{n:a_n0\}.`$

###### Proposition 4.

For every $`_\stackrel{}{T}`$-normalized block basis $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)`$ in $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta },`$ and all $`\left(a_k\right)c_{00},`$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_kx_k_\stackrel{}{T}2\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_ke_{i_k}_\stackrel{}{T}$$

for all $`\left(a_k\right)c_{00},`$ where $`i_k=\mathrm{max}`$*supp*$`x_k,`$ and $`\left(e_n\right)`$ is the unit vector basis of $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$

###### Proof.

With the notation as above, we prove by induction that $`_{k=1}^pa_kx_k_n2_{k=1}^pa_ke_{i_k}_n^{}`$ for all $`n\left\{0\right\},`$ $`\left(a_k\right)c_{00}.`$

To establish the inequality for the case $`n=0,`$ let $`I𝒮_\alpha .`$ Define $`J=\{k:I\text{supp }x_k\mathrm{}\}.`$ Then

$`\sigma _I\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_kx_k\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left|a_k\right|\sigma _I\left(x_k\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}\left|a_k\right|x_k_0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}\left|a_k\right|=\sigma _L\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right),\text{where }L=\{i_k:kJ\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}_0^{},\text{ since }L𝒮_\alpha .`$
Suppose the proposition holds for some $`n.`$ Let $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_q\}`$ be $`𝒮_\beta `$-admissible. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_q`$ are successive integer intervals, that for all $`j,`$ $`E_j`$ supp$`x_k\mathrm{}`$ for some $`k,`$ and that $`i_p\mathrm{max}E_q.`$ Also let $`I_k`$ be the integer interval $`[i_{k1}+1,i_k]`$($`i_00`$). Let $`A=\{j:E_jI_k\text{ for any }k\}`$ and $`B=\{j:jA\}.`$ For $`jA,`$ set $`H_j=\{k:I_kE_j\}`$ and $`G_j=\{i_k:kH_j\}.`$ Then define $`F_j=\left(E_j\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_p\}\right)G_j.`$ Note that $`F_j<G_j`$ for all $`jA.`$ If $`jB,`$ set $`G_j=E_j\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_p\}.`$

It follows from Lemma 3 that $`\left(F_j\right)_{jA}\left(G_j\right)_{j=1}^q`$ is $`\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2`$-admissible. Finally, let $`J=\{k:k_{jA}H_j,\text{ }I_k\left(E_j\right)\mathrm{}\}.`$ Now

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_kx_k\right)_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{j^{}A}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kH_j^{}}{}}a_kx_k+{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}a_kx_k\right)_n`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}\left(E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{j^{}A}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kH_j^{}}{}}a_kx_k\right)_n+E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}a_kx_k\right)_n\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{kH_j}{}}a_kx_k\right)_n+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}a_kx_k\right)_n`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kH_j}{}}a_kx_k_n+{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}\left|a_k\right|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}E_jx_k_n`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kH_j}{}}a_kx_k_n+2{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}\left|a_k\right|x_k_{n+1}`$
$`2\left({\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kH_j}{}}a_ke_{i_k}_n^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}\left|a_k\right|\right)\text{ by inductive hypothesis,}`$
$`=2\left({\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}G_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}\left|a_k\right|\right).`$
If $`kJ,`$ then either $`\left\{i_k\right\}=F_j`$ for some $`jA`$ or $`\left\{i_k\right\}=G_j`$ for some $`jB.`$ Therefore

$$\underset{kJ}{}\left|a_k\right|\underset{jA}{}F_j\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}+\underset{jB}{}G_j\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}.$$

Hence

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}E_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_kx_k\right)_n`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}G_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}+2{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}F_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{jB}{}}G_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}`$
$`=2\left({\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}F_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}G_j\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}\right)_n^{}\right)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}a_ke_{i_k}_{n+1}^{},\text{ as }\left(F_j\right)_{jA}\left(G_j\right)_{j=1}^q\text{ is }\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\text{-admissible.}`$
Thus

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}E_j\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_kx_k\right)_n2\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_ke_{i_k}_{n+1}^{}$$

whenever $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_q\}`$ is $`𝒮_\beta `$-admissible. It follows that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_kx_k_{n+1}2\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_ke_{i_k}_{n+1}^{}.$$

This completes the induction. ∎

Let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ be countable ordinals. Define the families $`\left(_n\right),`$ $`\left(_n^{}\right),`$ $`\left(𝒢_n\right)`$ and $`\left(𝒢_n^{}\right)`$ inductively as follows: $`_0=_0^{}=𝒮_\alpha ,`$ $`𝒢_1=𝒮_\beta ,`$ $`𝒢_1^{}=\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2,`$ for all $`n,`$

$$_{n+1}=𝒮_\beta \left[_n\right],\text{ }_{n+1}^{}=\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\left[_n^{}\right]\text{}𝒢_{n+1}=𝒮_\beta \left[𝒢_n\right]\text{ and, }𝒢_{n+1}^{}=\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\left[𝒢_n^{}\right]\text{.}$$

It is easily verified that $`𝒢_n\left[𝒮_\alpha \right]=_n,`$ $`𝒢_n^{}\left[𝒮_\alpha \right]=_n^{},`$ $`𝒢_n\left[𝒮_\beta \right]=𝒢_{n+1}`$ and $`𝒢_n^{}\left[\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\right]=𝒢_{n+1}^{}`$ for all $`n.`$ For each $`n,`$ denote the norms $`__n`$ and $`__n^{}`$ by $`\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _n^{}`$ respectively.

###### Proposition 5.

For all $`ac_{00},`$ and all $`n\left\{0\right\},`$ $`a_\stackrel{}{T}\frac{1}{2^n}\rho _n\left(a\right).`$

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`n.`$ The case $`n=0`$ is clearly true by definition. Suppose the result holds for some $`n.`$ Let $`E_{n+1}.`$ Then $`E=_{i=1}^jE_i,`$ where $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_j_n,`$ $`E_1<\mathrm{}<E_j,`$ and $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}`$ is $`𝒮_\beta `$-admissible. For any $`a=\left(a_k\right)c_{00},`$

$$\underset{kE}{}\left|a_k\right|=\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}\underset{kE_i}{}\left|a_k\right|\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}\rho _n\left(E_ia\right)2^n\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ia_\stackrel{}{T}2^{n+1}a_\stackrel{}{T}.$$

Since $`E_{n+1}`$ is arbitrary, the result follows. ∎

###### Proposition 6.

For all $`ac_{00},`$ and all $`n\left\{0\right\},`$

$$a_\stackrel{}{T}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\rho _i^{}\left(a\right)}{2^i}+\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}sup\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}E_ia_\stackrel{}{T}:\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}\text{ }𝒢_{n+1}^{}\text{-admissible}\}.$$

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`n.`$ The case $`n=0`$ holds by Proposition 4. Assume the result holds for some $`n.`$ Let $`ac_{00}.`$ Suppose $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}`$ is $`𝒢_{n+1}^{}`$-admissible. Let $`I=\{i:E_ia_\stackrel{}{T}=\rho _0^{}\left(E_ia\right)\}`$ and $`J=\{1,2,\mathrm{},j\}I.`$ For each $`iI,`$ choose $`D_iE_i,`$ $`D_i𝒮_\alpha ,`$ such that $`\rho _0^{}\left(E_ia\right)=_{kD_i}\left|a_k\right|.`$ Now $`D=_{iI}D_i𝒢_{n+1}^{}\left[𝒮_\alpha \right]=_{n+1}^{}.`$ Hence

(1)
$$\underset{iI}{}E_ia_\stackrel{}{T}=\underset{kD}{}\left|a_k\right|\rho _{n+1}^{}\left(a\right).$$

On the other hand, for each $`iJ,`$ there exist $`\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2`$-admissible sets $`\{E_1^i,\mathrm{},E_{k_i}^i\},`$ $`E_1^i\mathrm{}E_{k_i}^iE_i`$ such that

$$E_ia_\stackrel{}{T}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k_i}{}}E_p^ia_\stackrel{}{T}.$$

Now $`\{\mathrm{min}E_p^i:iJ,\text{ }1pk_i\}𝒢_{n+1}^{}\left[\left(𝒮_\beta \right)^2\right]=𝒢_{n+2}^{}.`$ Hence $`\left(E_p^i\right)_{iJ,\text{ }1pk_i}`$ is $`𝒢_{n+2}^{}`$ admissible. Thus

(2) $`{\displaystyle \underset{iJ}{}}E_ia_\stackrel{}{T}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{iJ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k_i}{}}}E_p^ia_\stackrel{}{T}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sup\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_ia_\stackrel{}{T}:\{F_1,\mathrm{},F_{\mathrm{}}\}\text{ }𝒢_{n+2}^{}\text{-admissible}\}.`$
From the inductive hypothesis and inequalities (1) and (2) we get

$`a_\stackrel{}{T}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i^{}\left(a\right)}{2^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}}\left(\rho _{n+1}^{}\left(a\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sup\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_ia_\stackrel{}{T}\}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i^{}\left(a\right)}{2^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{n+2}}}sup\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_ia_\stackrel{}{T}\},`$
where both suprema are taken over all $`𝒢_{n+2}^{}`$-admissible sets $`\{F_1,\mathrm{},F_{\mathrm{}}\}.`$ This completes the induction. ∎

Endow $`\left[\right]^<\mathrm{}`$ with the product topology inherited from $`2^{}.`$ If $``$ is a closed subset of $`\left[\right]^<\mathrm{},`$ let $`^{}`$ be the set of all limit points of $`.`$ Define a transfinite sequence of sets $`\left(^{\left(\alpha \right)}\right)_{\alpha <\omega _1}`$ as follows: $`^{\left(0\right)}=,`$ $`^{\left(\alpha +1\right)}=\left(^{\left(\alpha \right)}\right)^{}`$ for all $`\alpha <\omega _1;`$ $`^{\left(\alpha \right)}=_{\beta <\alpha }^{\left(\beta \right)}`$ if $`\alpha `$ is a countable limit ordinal.

###### Definition 7.

*()* Let $`\left[\right]^<\mathrm{}`$ be regular. Define $`\iota \left(\right)`$ to be the unique countable ordinal $`\alpha `$ such that $`^{\left(\alpha \right)}=\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}.`$

Let $`F\left[𝒩\right],`$ $`F\mathrm{},`$ where $``$ and $`𝒩`$ are regular families. There exists a largest $`kF`$ such that $`F[1,k]𝒩`$. Set $`F_1=F[1,k].`$ If $`F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_{n1}`$ have been defined and $`F_{i=1}^{n1}F_i\mathrm{},`$ set $`F_n=\left(F_{i=1}^{n1}F_i\right)[1,k^{}],`$ where $`k^{}`$ is the largest integer in $`F`$ such that $`\left(F_{i=1}^{n1}F_i\right)[1,k^{}]𝒩`$. Since $`F`$ is finite, there exists an $`n`$ such that $`F=_{i=1}^nF_i.`$ Now $`F\left[𝒩\right]`$ implies that there exists an $``$-admissible collection $`\{G_1,\mathrm{},G_m\}`$ such that $`F=_{j=1}^mG_j`$ and $`G_j𝒩`$, $`1jm.`$ By the choice of $`F_i,`$ and the fact that $`𝒩`$ is hereditary, it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{min}G_i\mathrm{min}F_i,`$ $`1in.`$ Thus $`\{F_1,\mathrm{},F_n\}`$ is $``$-admissible, as $``$ is spreading. We call $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ the standard representation of $`F`$ (as an element of $`\left[𝒩\right]`$).

###### Remark 8.

*Suppose that* $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ *and* $`\left(G_i\right)_{i=1}^m`$ *are the standard representations of* $`F`$ *and* $`G`$ *respectively. If* $`\mathrm{},k𝒩`$ *are such that* $`F[1,\mathrm{}]=G[1,\mathrm{}]`$ *and* $`\mathrm{max}F_k\mathrm{},`$ *then by construction,* $`F_i=G_i,`$$`1ik.`$

###### Lemma 9.

Let $``$, $`𝒩\left[\right]^<\mathrm{}`$ be regular. Suppose that $`\iota \left(𝒩\right)=\alpha ,`$ then $`\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}=\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right].`$

###### Proof.

Let $`F\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],`$ then $`F`$ can be written as $`F=_{i=1}^nF_i,`$ where $`F_1<F_2<\mathrm{}<F_n,`$ $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_n𝒩`$, and $`\{\mathrm{min}F_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}F_n\}^{\left(1\right)}.`$ In particular, there exists $`k_0>\mathrm{max}F`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{min}F_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}F_n,k\}`$ for all $`kk_0.`$ Therefore,

(3)
$$\text{for all }G𝒩,\mathrm{min}Gk_0,FG\left[𝒩\right].$$

Note that as $`𝒩`$ is spreading,

(4)
$$\iota \left(\{G𝒩:\mathrm{min}Gk_0\}\right)=\iota \left(𝒩\right)=\alpha .$$

From (3),

$$\left(\{FG:G𝒩,\mathrm{min}Gk_0\}\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}.$$

But from (4), $`F\left(\{FG:G𝒩,\mathrm{min}Gk_0\}\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}.`$ Hence $`F\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}.`$

Conversely, we prove by induction that $`\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\gamma \right)}(\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],𝒩^{\left(\gamma \right)})`$ for all $`\gamma \alpha .`$ The cases where $`\gamma =0`$ is clear.

Suppose the claim is true for some $`\gamma <\alpha .`$ Let $`F\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\gamma +1\right)}`$ with standard representation $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ as an element of $`\left[𝒩\right].`$ Choose a sequence $`\left(G_k\right)`$ in $`\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\gamma \right)}(\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],𝒩^{\left(\gamma \right)})`$ that converges nontrivially to $`F.`$ We may assume that $`G_k[1,\mathrm{min}F_n]=F[1,\mathrm{min}F_n]`$ for all $`k.`$ Now we may write $`G_k=P_kQ_k,`$ where $`P_k<Q_k`$, $`P_k\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]`$ and $`Q_k𝒩^{\left(\gamma \right)}.`$ Let $`P=_{i=1}^{n1}F_i`$. Note that $`P\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right].`$ We consider two cases.

Case 1. There exists $`k`$ such that $`\mathrm{min}F_nP_k.`$

In this case, $`P[1,\mathrm{max}F_{n1}]=F[1,\mathrm{max}F_{n1}]=G_k[1,\mathrm{max}F_{n1}]=P_k[1,\mathrm{max}F_{n1}].`$ It is clear that $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^{n1}`$ is the standard representation of $`P`$ as an element of $`\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right].`$ By Remark 8, the standard representation of $`P_k`$ as an element of $`\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]`$ has the form $`(F_1,\mathrm{},F_{n1},P_k^n,\mathrm{},P_k^m).`$ In particular,

$$\{\mathrm{min}F_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}F_{n1},\mathrm{min}F_n\}=\{\mathrm{min}F_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}F_{n1},\mathrm{min}P_k^n\}^{\left(1\right)}.$$

Thus $`F=_{i=1}^nF_i\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right](\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],𝒩^{\left(\gamma +1\right)}),`$ as required.

Case 2. Suppose $`\mathrm{min}F_nP_k`$ for all $`k.`$

In this case, $`G_k[\mathrm{min}F_n,\mathrm{})Q_k`$ for all $`k.`$ Hence $`G_k[\mathrm{min}F_n,\mathrm{})𝒩^{\left(\gamma \right)}`$ for all $`k.`$ Furthermore, $`G_k[\mathrm{min}F_n,\mathrm{})`$ converges to $`F[\mathrm{min}F_n,\mathrm{})=F_n`$ nontrivially. Thus $`F_n𝒩^{\left(\gamma +1\right)}.`$ Therefore $`F=PF_n(\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],𝒩^{\left(\gamma +1\right)}),`$ as required.

Suppose $`\gamma \alpha `$ is a limit ordinal and the result holds for all $`\eta <\gamma .`$ Let $`F\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\gamma \right)}`$ have standard representation $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ as an element of $`\left[𝒩\right].`$ By the inductive hypothesis, for each $`\eta <\gamma ,`$ $`F=P_\eta Q_\eta ,`$ where $`P_\eta <Q_\eta ,`$ $`P_\eta \left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]`$ and $`Q_\eta 𝒩^{\left(\eta \right)}.`$ By the argument in case 1 above, if there exists $`\eta `$ such that $`\mathrm{min}F_nP_\eta ,`$ then $`F\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right](\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],𝒩^{\left(\eta \right)}).`$ Otherwise, $`F_nQ_\eta 𝒩^{\left(\eta \right)}`$ for all $`\eta <\gamma .`$ Hence $`F=\left(_{i=1}^{n1}F_i\right)F_n(\left(^{\left(1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right],𝒩^{\left(\gamma \right)}).`$ This completes the induction. ∎

###### Proposition 10.

Let $``$, $`𝒩\left[\right]^<\mathrm{}`$ be regular. Suppose that $`\iota \left(𝒩\right)=\alpha .`$ Then for all $`\beta <\omega _1,`$ $`\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \beta \right)}=\left(^{\left(\beta \right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right].`$

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`\beta .`$ The case $`\beta =0`$ is clear. Suppose the result is true for some $`\beta .`$ Then

$`\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \left(\beta +1\right)\right)}`$ $`=\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \beta +\alpha \right)}`$
$`=\left(\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \beta \right)}\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}`$
$`=\left(\left(^{\left(\beta \right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \right)}\text{ by the inductive hypothesis,}`$
$`=\left(\left(^{\left(\beta \right)}\right)^{\left(1\right)}\left[𝒩\right]\right)\text{ by Lemma }\text{9}\text{,}`$
$`=\left(^{\left(\beta +1\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right].`$
Suppose the proposition is true for all $`\beta <\beta _0,`$ where $`\beta _0<\omega _1`$ is some limit ordinal. Clearly,

$$\left(^{\left(\beta _0\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]\underset{\beta <\beta _0}{}\left(^{\left(\beta \right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]=\underset{\beta <\beta _0}{}\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \beta \right)}=\left(\left[𝒩\right]\right)^{\left(\alpha \beta _0\right)}.$$

On the other hand, let $`F_{\beta <\beta _0}\left(^{\left(\beta \right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]`$ have standard representation $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ as an element of $`\left[𝒩\right].`$ It is clear that $`\left(F_i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ is also the standard representation of $`F`$ as an element of $`\left(^{\left(\beta \right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right]`$ for any $`\beta <\beta _0.`$ In particular, $`\{\mathrm{min}F_i:1in\}^{\left(\beta \right)}`$ for all $`\beta <\beta _0.`$ Hence $`\{\mathrm{min}F_i:1in\}^{\left(\beta _0\right)}.`$ It follows that $`F\left(^{\left(\beta _0\right)}\right)\left[𝒩\right].`$ This completes the proof. ∎

It is well known that $`\iota \left(𝒮_\gamma \right)=\omega ^\gamma `$ for all $`\gamma <\omega _1`$ (\[1, Proposition 4.10\]). The indices of $`_n`$ and $`_n^{}`$ can be computed readily with the help of Proposition 10.

###### Corollary 11.

$`\iota \left(_n\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta n},`$ $`\iota \left(_n^{}\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta n}2.`$

Before proceeding further, let us recall the relevant terminology concerning trees. A *tree* on a set $`X`$ is a subset $`T`$ of $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}X^n`$ such that $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)T`$ whenever $`n`$ and $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})T`$. These are the only kind of trees we will consider. A tree $`T`$ is *well-founded* if there is no infinite sequence $`(x_n)`$ in $`X`$ such that $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)T`$ for all $`n`$. Given a well-founded tree $`T`$, we define the *derived tree* $`D(T)`$ to be the set of all $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)T`$ such that $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,x)T`$ for some $`xX`$. Inductively, we let $`D^0(T)=T`$, $`D^{\alpha +1}(T)=D(D^\alpha (T))`$, and $`D^\alpha (T)=_{\beta <\alpha }D^\beta (T)`$ if $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal. The *order* of a well-founded tree $`T`$ is the smallest ordinal $`o(T)`$ such that $`D^{o(T)}(T)=\mathrm{}`$. If $`E`$ is a Banach space and $`1K<\mathrm{}`$, an $`\mathrm{}^1`$-$`K`$ tree on $`E`$ is a tree $`T`$ on $`S(X)=\{xE:x=1\}`$ such that $`_{i=1}^na_ix_iK^1_{i=1}^n|a_i|`$ whenever $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)T`$ and $`(a_i)`$. If $`E`$ has a basis $`(e_i)`$, a *block tree* on $`E`$ is a tree $`T`$ on $`E`$ so that every $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)T`$ is a finite block basis of $`(e_i)`$. An $`\mathrm{}^1`$-$`K`$-block tree on $`E`$ is a block tree that is also an $`\mathrm{}^1`$-$`K`$ tree. The index $`I(E,K)`$ is defined to be $`sup\{o(T):T\text{ is an }\mathrm{}^1\text{-}K\text{ tree on }E\}`$. If $`E`$ has a basis $`(e_i)`$, the index $`I_b(E,K)`$ is defined similarly, with the supremum taken over all $`\mathrm{}^1`$-$`K`$ block trees. The Bourgain $`\mathrm{}^1`$-*index* of $`E`$ is the ordinal $`I(E)=sup\{I(E,K):1K<\mathrm{}\}`$. The index $`I_b(E)`$ is defined similarly. Bourgain proved that if $`E`$ is a separable Banach space not containing a copy of $`\mathrm{}^1`$, then $`I(E)<\omega _1`$ . More on these and related indices can be found in  and .

###### Proposition 12.

Let $`T`$ be a well-founded block tree on some basis $`\left(e_i\right).`$ Define

$$\left(T\right)=\{\{\mathrm{max}\text{supp }x_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n\}:(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)T\}.$$

and

$$𝒢\left(T\right)=\{G:F\left(T\right),f:\text{ strictly increasing, such that }Gf\left(F\right)\}.$$

Then $`\iota \left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)o\left(T\right).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`\xi =o\left(T\right).`$ The proof is by induction on $`\xi .`$ If $`o\left(T\right)=1,`$ then $`𝒢\left(T\right)\{\left\{k\right\}:kn\}`$ for some $`n.`$ Therefore $`\left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)^{\left(1\right)}\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}`$ and hence $`\iota \left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)1=o\left(T\right).`$

Suppose the proposition holds for some $`\xi <\omega _1.`$ Let $`T`$ be a well founded block tree with $`o\left(T\right)=\xi +1.`$ For each $`\left(x\right)T,`$ let

$$T_x=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n):(x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)T\}.$$

According to \[3, Proposition 4\], $`o\left(T\right)=sup_{\left(x\right)T}\left\{o\left(T_x\right)+1\right\}.`$ Therefore, there exists $`\left(x_0\right)T`$ such that $`o\left(T_{x_0}\right)=\xi .`$ By the inductive hypothesis, $`\iota \left(𝒢\left(T_{x_0}\right)\right)\xi .`$ Let $`k_0=\mathrm{max}`$ supp $`x_0.`$ Then $`G𝒢\left(T_{x_0}\right)`$ implies $`\left\{k_0\right\}G𝒢\left(T\right).`$ Thus $`\left\{k_0\right\}\left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)^{\left(\xi \right)}.`$ Since $`\left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)^{\left(\xi \right)}`$ is spreading, $`\left\{k\right\}\left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)^{\left(\xi \right)}`$ for all $`kk_0.`$ It follows that $`\mathrm{}\left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)^{\left(\xi +1\right)}.`$ Hence $`\iota \left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)\xi +1=o\left(T\right).`$

Suppose $`o\left(T\right)=\xi _0,`$ where $`\xi _0`$ is a countable limit ordinal and the proposition holds for all $`\xi <\xi _0`$. Since $`o\left(T\right)>\xi `$ for all $`\xi <\xi _0.`$ By the inductive hypothesis, $`\iota \left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)>\xi `$ for all $`\xi <\xi _0.`$ Hence $`\iota \left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)\xi _0=o\left(T\right).`$ This completes the induction. ∎

If $`\left(x_k\right)_{k=1}^n`$ and $`\left(y_k\right)_{k=1}^n`$ are sequences in possibly different normed spaces, and $`0<K<\mathrm{},`$ we write $`\left(x_k\right)_{k=1}^n\stackrel{𝐾}{}\left(y_k\right)_{k=1}^n`$ to mean $`K_{k=1}^na_kx_k_{k=1}^na_ky_k`$ for all $`\left(a_k\right).`$

###### Theorem 13.

$`I\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)=I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }.`$

###### Proof.

If $`I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)>\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega },`$ then $`I_b(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta },K)>\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }`$ for some $`K>1.`$ Hence there exists an $`\mathrm{}^1`$-$`K`$-block tree $`T`$ on $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ such that $`o\left(T\right)=\xi >\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }.`$ Given $`F\left(T\right),`$ there exists $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)T`$ such that $`F=\{\mathrm{max}`$supp$`x_i\}_{i=1}^n.`$ According to Proposition 4, $`\left(e_k\right)_{kF}\stackrel{2}{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n),`$ where $`\left(e_k\right)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the unit vector basis of $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ Since $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)T,`$ $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)\stackrel{𝐾}{}\mathrm{}^1\left(\left|F\right|\right)`$-basis. Therefore, $`\left(e_k\right)_{kF}\stackrel{2K}{}\mathrm{}^1\left(\left|F\right|\right)`$-basis for all $`F\left(T\right).`$ Since it is clear that $`a_ke_{f(k)}_\stackrel{}{T}a_ke_k_\stackrel{}{T}`$ for all $`\left(a_k\right)c_{00}`$ whenever $`f:`$ is strictly increasing, it follows that $`\left(e_k\right)_{kG}\stackrel{2K}{}\mathrm{}^1\left(\left|G\right|\right)`$-basis for all $`G𝒢\left(T\right).`$ By Proposition 12, $`\left(𝒢\left(T\right)\right)^{\left(\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }+1\right)}\mathrm{}.`$ Thus by \[6, Corollary 1.2\], there exists $`L\left[\right]`$ such that $`𝒮_{\alpha +\beta \omega }\left[L\right]^<\mathrm{}𝒢\left(T\right).`$ Hence, for all $`\left(a_k\right)c_{00}`$ and all $`G𝒮_{\alpha +\beta \omega }\left[L\right]^<\mathrm{},`$

(5)
$$\underset{kG}{}a_ke_k_\stackrel{}{T}\frac{1}{2K}\underset{kG}{}\left|a_k\right|.$$

Choose $`m`$ such that $`2^m>2K.`$ According to Corollary 11, $`\iota \left(_i^{}\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta i}2`$ for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},m.`$ Applying \[6, Corollary 1.2\], we obtain $`M\left[L\right]`$ such that $`_i^{}\left[M\right]^<\mathrm{}𝒮_{\alpha +\beta m+1}`$ for all $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},m.`$ By \[9, Proposition 3.6\], there exists $`F𝒮_{\alpha +\beta \omega }\left(M\right)𝒮_{\alpha +\beta \omega }\left[M\right]^<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\left(a_j\right)_{jF}^+`$ such that $`a_j=1`$ and if $`GF`$ with $`G𝒮_{\alpha +\beta m+1},`$ then $`_{jG}a_j<\frac{1}{8K}.`$ Consider $`x=_{jF}a_je_j\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ If $`1im`$ and $`I_i^{},`$ then $`IF_i^{}\left[M\right]^<\mathrm{}𝒮_{\alpha +\beta m+1}.`$ Hence $`\sigma _I\left(x\right)=\sigma _{IF}\left(x\right)<\frac{1}{8K}.`$ It follows that $`\rho _i^{}\left(x\right)\frac{1}{8K}`$ for $`1im.`$ By Proposition 6,

$`x_\stackrel{}{T}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i^{}\left(x\right)}{2^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{m+1}}}sup\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}}E_ix_\stackrel{}{T}:\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_j\}\text{ }𝒢_{m+1}^{}\text{-admissible}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{8K}}{2^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{m+1}}}x_\mathrm{}^1<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K}},`$
contrary to (5). This proves that $`I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }.`$ On the other hand, according to Proposition 5, for any $`n`$, $`a_\stackrel{}{T}\frac{1}{2^n}a__n`$ for any $`ac_{00}.`$ By Corollary 11, $`\iota \left(_n\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta n}.`$ Therefore, there exists an $`\mathrm{}^1`$-$`2^n`$block basis tree $`T_n`$ on $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ with $`o\left(T_n\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta n}.`$ Hence $`I_b(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta },2^n)\omega ^{\alpha +\beta n}.`$ Thus $`I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)=sup_KI_b(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta },K)\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }.`$ We conclude that $`I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)=\omega ^{\alpha +\beta \omega }.`$ As $`I\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)\omega ^\omega ,`$ it follows from \[7, Corollary 5.13\] that $`I\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right)=I_b\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha ,\beta }\right).`$

For the final corollary, recall that the Schreier space $`X_\alpha ,\alpha <\omega _1,`$ is the completion of $`c_{00}`$ with respect to the norm $`_{𝒮_\alpha }.`$

###### Corollary 14.

Suppose $`\alpha `$ is a countable ordinal whose Cantor normal form is $`\omega ^{\alpha _1}m_1+\mathrm{}+\omega ^{\alpha _k}m_k.`$ If $`\alpha _k`$ is not a limit ordinal, then there exists a Banach space $`X`$ such that $`I\left(X\right)=\omega ^\alpha .`$

###### Proof.

If $`\alpha _k=0,`$ then $`\alpha `$ is a successor ordinal and $`\iota \left(X_{\alpha 1}\right)=\omega ^\alpha `$ (). If $`\alpha _k`$ is a successor ordinal, let $`\gamma =\omega ^{\alpha _1}m_1+\mathrm{}+\omega ^{\alpha _k}\left(m_k1\right)`$ and $`\eta =\omega ^{\alpha _k1}.`$ By Theorem 13, $`I\left(\stackrel{}{T}_{\gamma ,\eta }\right)=\omega ^{\gamma +\eta \omega }=\omega ^\alpha .`$

###### Remark 15.

*The following analog of Proposition 4 for the space* $`X_\alpha ,`$$`\alpha <\omega _1,`$ *holds obviously: If* $`\left(x_i\right)_{i=1}^p`$ *is a normalized block basis of the unit vector basis* $`\left(e_k\right)`$ *of* $`X_\alpha ,`$ *and* $`k_i=\mathrm{max}`$ *supp* $`x_i,`$$`1ip,`$ *then* $`_{i=1}^pa_ix_i_{i=1}^pa_ie_{k_i}`$ *for all* $`\left(a_i\right)c_{00}.`$ *Therefore the arguments in Proposition 12 and Theorem 13 can be used to compute* $`I_b\left(X_\alpha \right)`$ *(with respect to the basis* $`\left(e_k\right)`$*).*


text:
# Errors drive the evolution of biological signalling to costly codes

## 1 Introduction

Cells, groups of cells and multicellular organisms communicate their states using signals. The types of signals and encoding mechanisms used can be very different but, irrespectively of the mechanism, signal transmission should have a high efficiency within biological constraints. A universal constraint is the signalling cost. Have biological signalling codes evolved to minimise cost? Cost reduction seems advantageous Baddeley1; Baddeley2; Laughlin; Stemmler; Levy; Softky but signalling systems might be simultaneously optimal not only respect to cost but also to other constraints resulting in signalling codes very different to the cost efficient ones. A second universal constraint is communication errors. Here I consider the extension of information theory Shannon; Cover to include errors and cost together as constraints of signalling systems and find the optimal signal usage under these constraints. For clarity of exposition and because the best data sets for statistical analysis are in neural signals, I will particularise the discussion to cell signalling and discuss the relevance of results to other signalling systems afterwards.

Neurons provide an experimentally tractable case of cell signalling. The experimental evidence in neurons is counterintuitive. Neurons codes can underutilise low cost signals. For neurons using different spike rates as signals, it has been found that low rates that take lesser metabolic cost to produce are typically underutilised Treves. Similarly, neurons using spike bursts as signals underutilise the bursts of one spike that would take lesser production cost Balasubramanian2; Balasubramanian1. Theories of cost efficiency cannot explain these experimental results. According to the theories of cost efficiency, signalling systems should maximise their capacity to represent different states given a cost constraint or maximise the ratio of this representational capacity and the cost Baddeley1; Levy. The optimal distribution for these theories is an exponential decaying with signal cost. In this way the most probable signals are those of lowest cost in clear contrast to the underutilisation of the low cost signals observed experimentally. For this reason I consider here the evolution of biological signalling codes towards efficiency of transmission within the biological constraints of both cost and errors.

This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 gives the theoretical framework and the general result of optimal signal usage when both costs and errors constrain the signalling system. To find this optimal signal usage, an iterative algorithm that can be easily implemented is given. Section 3 shows that the optimal solutions found predict quantitatively the experimental results for signal usage in visual cortex neurons. Section 4 gives the conclusions and discusses the application to a variety of biological signalling systems including animal communication for which it is shown that cheaters would shift efficient codes to high cost.

## 2 Theoretical treatment

For signal transmission between a signaller and a receiver to work, the signaller must use encoding rules that correlate its signalling states $`C=\{c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_N\}`$ with the signals $`S=\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_N\}`$. For intercellular signalling, the signals $`S`$ can be different values of concentration of the same chemical, different mixtures of several chemicals, different time patterns (say, different frequencies of spike generation or bursts of different sizes), different spatial patterns or even different patterns of activation of a group of cells. The cellular states $`C`$ are the internal variables representing the ideal signals without errors. Experimentally, identical stimulations of the cell will produce a distribution of signals were the peak is the ideal noiseless signal corresponding to the cellular state and the variance comes from the errors.

The correlation of states and signals is subject to the constraints imposed by cost and errors. We characterise these errors with the error matrix of conditional probabilities $`Q_{kj}p(c_k|s_j)`$, a matrix given by the probability that the signal $`s_j`$ comes from the state $`c_k`$. When there are no errors present each signal comes from a single state, and the error matrix Q is diagonal. When there are errors present, there are nonzero nondiagonal elements. The costs can be in molecular machinery (a convenient parameter can be the number of ATP molecules), in transmission times (for example, bursts of many spikes take longer times to transmit than of fewer spikes) and in risks (for example by the use of chemicals that can be toxic). We can formally write the costs of producing the signals as $`ϵ_{kj}`$ with for example $`ϵ_{12}`$ the cost for the conversion of the first state into the second signal. As we are interested in the signal usage, we refer the costs to the signals as $`ϵ_j=_kQ_{kj}ϵ_{kj}`$. We always label the signals in order of increasing cost, $`ϵ_1ϵ_2\mathrm{}ϵ_N`$.

We also need to formalise the notion of correlation between the signaller’s states and the signals in order to consider the consequences of cost and errors for this correlation. We require a general measure of correlation that is valid for any nonlinear dependencies, unlike correlation functions Li, and that does not use a metric that measures correlation in an arbitrary manner. The averaged distance between the actual joint distribution $`p(c_i,s_j)`$ and the distribution corresponding to complete decorrelation $`p(c_i,s_j)_{decorr}p(c_i)p(s_j)`$ gives such a general measure of correlation of the form

$$I(C;S)=\underset{i,j}{}p(c_i,s_j)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{p(c_i,s_j)}{p(c_i)p(s_j)}\right),$$
(1)
that is zero for the completely decorrelated case and increases with increasing correlation. This is the standard measure of statistical correlation used in communication theory where it is known as mutual information Shannon. The mutual information $`I`$ takes care of the errors as a constraint as it decreases for an error matrix with larger non-diagonal elements. To see this, we can write its expression in (1) in terms of the error matrix Q by separating it into the signal variability and the signal uncertainty terms as $`I(C;S)=H(S)H(S|C)`$ , with $`H(S)=_jp(s_j)\mathrm{log}p(s_j)`$ and $`H(S|C)=_jp(s_j)\xi _j`$ with

$$\xi _j=\underset{k}{}Q_{kj}\mathrm{log}P_{jk}$$
(2)
a measure of the signal uncertainty for signal $`s_j`$ and $`P_{jk}p(s_j|c_k)`$ the probability that the state $`c_k`$ produces the signal $`s_j`$. We can express $`P_{kj}`$ in terms of Q using Bayes’ theorem as $`P_{jk}=(p(s_j)Q_{kj})/(_ip(s_i)Q_{ki})`$. With these relations we see that the mutual information can be written as the difference of a term $`H(S)`$ that measures the variability of the signal and a term $`H(S|C)`$ that measures the signal uncertainty as the variability of the signal that comes from the errors in Q. This second term $`H(S|C)`$ is the constraint given by the errors.

Using the mutual information $`I`$ as the measure of correlation between states and signals, that includes the constraint given by the errors together with the cost constraint, we can now formulate precisely our problem. With which frequencies $`p(s_i)`$ should the signals $`S`$ be used to have a high mutual information $`I`$ between states $`C`$ and signals $`S`$ given the errors Q and the average cost $`E=_ip(s_i)ϵ_i`$ as the biological constraints? To answer this question we use the method of Lagrange multipliers (see Appendix). The solution of the equations obtained by this method can be found using different numerical methods and we have chosen the one given in Algorithm 1 based on the Blahut-Arimoto algorithm Blahut; Arimoto, commonly used in rate distortion theory Cover, because it is particularly transparent as to the form of the solution.

From Algorithm 1, we obtain that the optimal signal usage taking errors and cost as constraints is of the form in (4)

$$\widehat{p}(s_j)=\widehat{Z}^1\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{\beta }ϵ_j\widehat{\xi }_j\right),$$
(6)
where the hat on $`p`$, $`Z`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\xi `$ is a reminder that their values are obtained using the iterative Algorithm 1. The expression for $`\xi `$ is given in (2) and $`Z`$ is the normalisation constant. This solution has a number of interesting characteristics. Both signal cost, through the term $`\beta ϵ_j`$, and the signal uncertainty from the errors $`\xi _j`$, penalise the usage of the signal $`s_j`$ in an exponential form. With no errors present the signal usage is a decaying exponential with the signal cost $`ϵ`$. And with no cost constraint the signal usage is an exponential against the signal uncertainty from the errors $`\xi `$. The distribution for the error-free case coincides with the one obtained in Statistical Mechanics where it is known as the Boltzmann distribution. We name the general distribution including the effect of the errors in (6) as a generalised Boltzmann distribution. To obtain the general relationship between statistical correlation $`I`$ and average cost $`E`$, substitute the distribution in (6) in the expression for $`I`$ in (1) to obtain $`\widehat{I}=\widehat{\beta }E+\mathrm{log}\widehat{Z}`$, where the parameter $`\widehat{\beta }`$ given in (5) and the normalisation constant $`\widehat{Z}`$ are nonlinear functions of the average cost $`E`$. This expression is the most general relationship between mutual information and cost for efficient signalling.

Given the error matrix Q, an average energy $`E`$ and signals costs $`ϵ`$, that can be obtained either experimentally or from theoretical models, Algorithm 1 gives the optimal signal usage that maximizes signal quality while maximizing cost-efficiency. We can advance some characteristics of the signal usage for optimal communication. In biological systems we expect that the errors produced with highest probability are those with the lowest amplitude. Two examples illustrate this point. Consider first a cell that translates some states into signals but that when it is in a nonsignalling state, spontaneously produces signals by error. The most probable signals to be produced by error are those of lowest amplitude and therefore lowest cost. This is the case in neurons when different values of spike rates are used as different signals and spontaneous signalling, say following a Poisson distribution, produces the highest rates with very low probability. The signals of lower rate have then a higher signal uncertainty and according to expression in (6) are then underutilized. As a second example consider animal communication. According to the present framework, cheaters that can produce low-cost signals enter as errors in the communication between healthy animals. These errors make the low-cost signals to have higher uncertainty and, as in the case of neuronal signalling, according to (6) the low-cost signals should be underutilized.

## 3 Comparison with experiments

The signal usage of a small percentage of neurons, $`16\%`$ in the case of neurons in the visual cortex area MT of macaques Treves, can be explained with a theory of cost-efficient signalling Baddeley1; Levy. To explain the signal usage for the totality of visual cortex neurons we use the formalism presented in the previous section that not only requires signal efficiency but signal quality. As in Baddeley2, the present formalism assumes a maximum signal variability with an energy constraint, the novelty here is to require also signal quality by minimizing signal uncertainty. We also assume that the spike rates are the symbols that the visual cortex neurons use to communicate Baddeley1; Baddeley2; Treves and that the costs of each symbol in ATP molecules can be taken to be linearly proportional to the rate value. As a simple model to the main contribution from noise, we assume spontaneous signalling when the cell should be in a nonsignalling state. This random spike production is modelled by a Poisson distribution, with the average number of spikes produced by error in an interval as the single parameter that distinguishes different cells. The optimal signal usage obtained from the Algorithm $`1`$ for this case can then be approximated as (see Appendix)

$$p(\mathrm{Rate})=\mathrm{Z}^1\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{Rate}/\alpha \right)\beta \mathrm{Rate}\right),$$
(7)
where $`Z`$ is the normalization constant. Cost efficiency is assured by the term $`\beta \mathrm{Rate}`$ that penalizes signals by their cost. Signal quality is assured by the term $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{Rate}/\alpha \right)`$ that penalizes signals by their signal uncertainty, that increases with $`\alpha `$. The predictions made by the optimal signalling in (7) are: (a) For high rate values the term required for signal quality in (7) is negligible, so optimal signal usage reduces to an exponential decaying with rate, that is, a straight line in a logarithmic plot. (b) Low rate values are expected to be underutilized respect to the straight line in (a). Specifically, the difference between the straight line in (a) and the logarithm of the probability, $`\beta \mathrm{Rate}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{p})`$ must be a decreasing exponential. We compare these predictions to the rate distributions of inferior temporal cortex neurons of two rhesus macaques responding to video scenes that have been recently reported Treves. The experimental distribution of rates for two of the cells (labelled as $`ba00101`$ and $`ay10202`$ in Treves) are given in Figure $`1`$ using a $`400`$ ms window. As seen in Figure $`1`$, the two predictions correspond to the experimental data. Cost-efficiency is responsible for the signal usage at high rates and both cost-efficiency and signal quality for the signal usage at lower values of rate. Different neurons may have different values of the average cost and different noise properties but the signal usage seems to be adapted to the optimal values for each cell.

## 4 Discussion

We have proposed an optimization principle of coding that takes into account both the noise and the cost associated with the coding. The outcome of this principle is the prediction of the signal usage for efficient signalling systems. The optimal signal usage for a communication system constrained by errors and cost has been shown to have a generalised Boltzmann form in equation (6) that penalises signals that are costly and that are sensitive to errors. Noisy signals with low amplitude and therefore low cost are responsible in the evolution of signalling systems towards efficiency for a shift of signalling codes to higher cost to minimize signal uncertainty. For the simplest case of linear costs and low cost noisy signals, the two main features of this optimal signal usage are an exponential tail at high cost signals needed for cost efficiency and an underutilisation of the low cost signals required to protect the signal quality against errors while maintaining the cost efficiency. The predictions made by this optimal signal usage have been shown to correspond to the experimental measurements in visual cortex neurons.

We have so far discussed cell signalling, but as we noticed already in the Introduction we have chosen this particular type of signalling for concreteness. The theoretical framework here proposed does not require knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of signalling. The theory only uses the notion of statistical correlation of states and signals without the need to make concrete how this correlation is physically established and without any description of the types of signals except for the costs and errors. This is enough to understand the optimal signal usage with cost and error constraints. For this reason, the results apply generally to biological communication and also to non-biological communication. Intracellular communication and machine-machine communication are two possible domains of application. Another important case is animal communication for which game-theoretical models have predicted that the evolutionary incentive to deceit is overcame increasing the cost of signals Zahavi1; Grafen; Bradbury. These costly signals are called handicaps and make the communication reliable in the sense of being honest. A different perspective is gained from the formalism presented here. Cheaters enter in a communication as errors in the communication between healthy animals and, as they are only able to produce low cost signals, the signal uncertainty of the low cost signals is higher. According to the general result in (6) these low cost signals should be underutilized by healthy animals for efficient communication. This means that signal quality requires a shift to high cost signals, as we saw in the case of neurons. In this case, cost can be metabolic, times or risks. In this way we obtain a statement of the handicap principle based on optimal communication without using the theory of games. Provided we know the communication symbols, their cost and error characteristics, the present formalism would give the optimal use of symbols according to signal quality and cost-efficiency. In general, a combination of both theories with competition elements and signal quality should be used.

It is interesting to discuss the limits of the theoretical framework. First, we have assumed that errors and cost are the only constraints of the communication system. Although these constraints are universal, particular systems might have extra constraints, that can be added straightforwardly to the present formalism. However, even in the presence of new constraints, the effect of the errors of the low cost signals would be to shift the signalling code to higher cost. Second, we have argued that in biological communication systems the errors that are produced with highest probability are those of the lowest amplitude and therefore of the lowest cost. For efficient signalling, we have seen that the consequence of the noise of low cost signals is to shift siganls to a higher cost code. However, it is possible to have a more sophisticated noise structure that can affect the high cost signals. For example, processing of the signals at the receiver cell might fail more frequently for the most complex incoming signals, typically those with highest cost. In this case, there should be an extra penalisation of the high cost signals and the decay of the distribution would be faster than exponential. There is partial experimental evidence for this type of code in Baddeley2 (see their Figure 4(f,g)). In any case, the general result of the therey presented here is the generalized Boltzmann form in (6), that holds for any efficient signalling as it makes no assumptions about the noise or cost properties.

## Acknowledgements

Dennis Bray, William Bialek, Fabrizio Gabbiani, John Hopfield, Rufus Johstone, and Amotz Zahavi are acknowledged for fruitful discussions. I am especially indebted to Simon Laughlin for many discussions and critical comments on the manuscript. I am also very grateful to Vijay Balasubramanian and Michael J. Berry for discussing their independent results on metabolic efficiency prior to publication. I am thankful to Stephano Panzeri for sending me the data for Figure $`1`$ and for discussing the results in Treves. This research has been supported by a Wellcome Trust Fellowship in Mathematical Biology.

## Apppendix

The optimization principle proposed consists in maximizing the mutual information subject to a cost constraint $`E=_ip(s_i)ϵ_i`$, where $`E`$ is the value of the average cost, $`\{ϵ_i\}`$ are the costs of the different signals and $`\{p_i\}`$ the different probabilities of using the signals. Formally, using the method of Lagrange multipliers, we can write this optimization principle as

$$\underset{p(s_i)}{\mathrm{max}}\left(I\beta \left(\underset{j}{}p(s_j)ϵ_jE\right)\lambda \left(\underset{j}{}p(s_j)1\right)\right),$$
(8)
where the mutual information is given by

$$I=H(S)H(S|C),$$
(9)
with the entropy of the signal $`H(S)`$ given by

$$H(S)=\underset{j}{}p(s_j)\mathrm{log}p(s_j)$$
(10)
and the entropy of the errors or noise $`H(S|C)=_{j,k}p(s_j,c_k)\mathrm{log}p(s_j|c_k)`$ can be written as

$$H(S|C)=\underset{j}{}p(s_j)\underset{k}{}Q_{kj}\mathrm{log}P_{jk}.$$
(11)
The matrix Q has elements $`Q_{kj}=p(c_k|s_j)`$ given by the probability that the signal $`s_j`$ comes from the state $`c_k`$. The matrix P has elements $`P_{jk}=p(s_j|c_k)`$ given by the probability that a state $`c_k`$ produces the signal $`s_j`$, that can be written in terms of the probability of finding a signal $`p(s_j)`$ and the matrix Q using Bayes’ theorem as $`P_{jk}=(p(s_j)Q_{kj})/(_ip(s_i)Q_{ki})`$. The optimization principle of coding includes both the errors through the error matrix Q (or P) and the costs associated with the coding. The general solution to this optimization principle is numerical. Before discussing this general numerical solution, we consider two particular cases that are analytical.

All signals with same noise. In this case the entropy of the noise reduces to a constant independent of the probabilities of using different signals, $`H(S|C)=\alpha `$. The optimization principle gives a result independent of the value of $`\alpha `$, with the probability of using a signal as an exponetial decreasing with cost (a Boltzmann distribution)

$$p(s_j)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_j)}{_i\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_i)},$$
(12)
with the parameter $`\beta `$ given by the average cost $`E`$ as

$$\frac{_i\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_i)ϵ_i}{_i\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_i)}=E.$$
(13)
For the case in which the cost is an average time $`T=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau p(\tau )\tau `$, the Boltzmann distribution reduces to the Poisson distribution

$$p(\tau )=T^1\mathrm{exp}(T^1\tau ).$$
(14)
A simple noise structure. As a toy analytical model of the results presented in this paper, consider a simple case of three signals in which the first two require the same cost, $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$, and the third one a higher cost $`ϵ_3>ϵ_1`$ and with the noise matrix elements $`p(c_1|s_1)=p(c_2|s_2)=1\rho `$, $`p(c_2|s_1)=p(c_1|s_2)=\rho `$ and $`p(c_3|s_3)=1`$. This toy model has two noisy signals with lower cost and a higher cost signal with no noise. The noise entropy for this case has the form

$$H(S|C)=\left(p(s_1)+p(s_2)\right)\xi .$$
(15)
with $`\xi =\rho \mathrm{log}\rho (1\rho )\mathrm{log}(1\rho )`$. The optimization principle for this example gives the probabilities

$`p(s_{1,2})`$ $`=p(m_{1,2})=Z^1\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_1\xi )`$ (16)
$`p(s_3)`$ $`=p(m_3)=Z^1\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_3),`$ (17)
with $`Z=2\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_1\xi )+\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_3)`$ the normalisation constant and $`\beta `$ given by the value of the average energy $`2p(s_1)ϵ_1+p(s_3)ϵ_3=E`$. The first two signals deviate from the Boltzmann form and are underutilized thus preserving signal quality.

General solution. Differentiating the constrained mutual information and equating to zero gives the probability of using a signal of the form

$$p(s_j)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta ϵ_j_kQ_{kj}\mathrm{log}P_{jk}\right)}{_j\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta ϵ_j_iQ_{ki}\mathrm{log}P_{ik}\right)},$$
(18)
but $`P_{jk}=(p(s_j)Q_{kj})/(_ip(s_i)Q_{ki})`$ also depends on $`p(s_j)`$. This creates a nontrivial self-referential problem. However, the optimization of the mutual information respect to the probability of using a signal $`p(s_i)`$ can be written as a double maximization (see Lemma 13.8.1 in Cover), that is, the maximization of the mutual information,

$$\underset{p(s_i)}{\mathrm{max}}\left(\underset{j,k}{}p(s_j)Q_{kj}\mathrm{log}\frac{p(s_j)Q_{kj}}{p(s_j)_mp(s_m)Q_{km}}\right),$$
(19)
can be written as the double maximization

$$\underset{P_{ij}}{\mathrm{max}}\left(\underset{p(s_j)}{\mathrm{max}}\left(\underset{j,k}{}p(s_j)Q_{kj}\mathrm{log}\frac{P_{jk}}{p(s_j)}\right)\right).$$
(20)
This double maximization suggests the possibility of an alternating maximization algorithm. Csiszar and Tusnady Csiszar have shown that an alternating maximization algorithm for this problem converges to the required maximum. The algorithm starts with a guess of an optimal $`p(s_i)`$ and with that calculates the conditional probability $`P_{ij}`$. This conditional probability is then used to recalculate a better guess to the optimal $`p(s_i)`$ and the procedure is continued until convergence. This algorithm, including in our case the cost constraint, is given as Algorithm $`1`$ in the main text.

For the case of a neuron, we would ideally include in Algorithm $`1`$ the experimentally measured values of the noise matrix Q, the signal costs $`\{ϵ_i\}`$ and the average cost $`E`$. As these values are not available from experiments at present, we consider the simplest models for both cost and noise. We consider a simple model of cost linearly proportional to the number of spikes in the time interval o finterest $`T`$, $`ϵ_ii`$ and the noise to be Poisson spontaneous signalling, $`p(s_i|c_0)=(\nu T)^i\mathrm{exp}(\nu T)/i!`$, with $`\nu `$ the frequency of spontaneous signalling and $`T`$ again the time interval of interest. For low $`\nu `$ this last expression can be approximated by an exponential, $`p(s_i|c_0)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma i)`$. Inserting these two approximations into Algorithm $`1`$, we find a good correspondence between theory and experiments for all cortex neurons tested, allowing for a different amount of spontaneous signalling parametrized by $`\gamma `$ and for a different average cost $`E`$ for each neuron. To obtain a simple analytical expression common for all cortex neurons, we fit the numerical data, or directly the experimental data, with the functional form suggested by the theory, $`p(Rate;\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{exp}(\xi (Rate;\alpha )\beta Rate)`$ to find $`\xi (Rate;\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(Rate/\alpha )`$ with different values of the parameter $`\alpha `$ depending on the noise of the particular neuron.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. The probability distribution of rate usage for visual cortex neurons follows the optimal distribution in equation (7) (solid line) with the predicted exponential tail (dashed line) for high rates and the underutilisation at low costs. The exponential tail makes visual cortex neurons cost efficient and the underutilisation of the low cost signals protects their signal quality against errors while remaining cost efficient. The errors are responsible for a shift to higher cost signals, with a maximum at a rate of value of $`10`$ spikes in the 400 ms window instead of at a rate of $`1`$ spike if there were no errors present. The experimental data have been taken from the two visual cortex neurons labelled as (a) $`ba00101`$ and (b) $`ay10202`$ in Treves.


text:
# Electronic States of Boron in Superconducting MgB2 Studied by 11B NMR

## Abstract

NMR spectra and nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`T_1^1`$ of 11B have been measured in superconducting polycrystalline MgB2 with $`T_c^{ons}39.5K`$. It is shown that $`(T_1T)^1`$ and the Knight shift $`K_s`$ are independent of temperature and nearly isotropic above $`T_c`$. Both of these quantities are decreased gradually in going to superconducting state. According NMR data the density of states (DOS) near the Fermi level is flat at the scale $``$ 500K. Some conclusions on the orbital content of the DOS at the Fermi level was done and compared with the results of the band structure calculations.

Discovery of superconductivity in magnesium diboride MgB2 showing remarkable high temperature of superconducting transition ($`T_c`$ 40K) Akimitsu  stimulated intensive studies of the electron properties of this new medium-$`T_c`$ superconductor. Crystal structure of MgB2 (space group symmetry $`D_{6h}^1`$) is well known and relates to the hexagonal AlB2-type Goldschmidt . Boron forms a primitive honeycomb lattice and pronounced $`BB`$ covalent bonding creates graphite-like sheets of boron separated by hexagonal layer of Mg. Calculations of electronic band structure show that the bands near the Fermi level are derived mainly from $`2p_{x,y}`$ bonding orbitals of boron Ivanovskii ; Kortus . As predicted the dispersion of these bands is extremely small near the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point of the Brillouin zone. They form two small cylindrical Fermi surfaces around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A line. Due to their 2D character they contribute more than one third of the total DOS - $`N(0)_{E_F}`$=0.199 (eV at.B)-1. Sizeable electron phonon coupling is predicted for electrons in these $`2p_{x,y}`$ bands Kortus  and strong boron isotope effect reported in Bud'ko  is in favor that MgB2 being phonon mediated superconductor. Electron-phonon coupling constant is proportional to DOS at the Fermi level and it is quite important to have experimental estimations of this quantity in MgB2.

We have measured NMR line shift $`(K)`$ and nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`(T_1^1)`$ of 11B. For boron in metallic MgB2 both these quantities contain the contributions determined by hyperfine coupling with conducting electrons of s and p bands. The hyperfine fields of s-electrons leads to isotropic contributions to the Knight shift $`(K_s)`$ and $`(T_1^1)`$. While hyperfine coupling with conducting electrons of p bands leads to anisotropic contribution both to the NMR line shift $`(K_{ax})`$ and the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate of 11B. This anisotropic contribution to $`(T_1^1)`$ depends on the orbital content of $`2p_i`$ electrons, having near the Fermi energy appropriate DOS $`N_i=f_iN(E_F)`$ Abragam ; Obata .

Polycrystalline MgB2 was prepared using a mixture of magnesium chips and amorphous boron pressed into pellets and placed in a tantalum crucible. The pellets were subjected to a two step annealing in purified helium flow $`(\mathrm{lg}Po_2=19)`$. A first step pellets were annealed at $`T_{an}`$=800C for 1 hour and resulting phase content was the following: MgB2 (78.6%); Mg(16.6%); MgO (4.7%) BN (traces). After succeeding annealing at $`T_{an}`$=875C for 1 hour (evaporation of magnesium) the final phase content was obtained: MgB2 (89.9%); MgO (5.2%); BN (1.7%). Quantitative phase analysis of the samples was carried out using X-ray powder diffraction data collected with a STADI-P diffractometer (STOE, Germany) and PDF2 data base (ICDD, USA). AC magnetization measurements show the SC transition with $`T_C^{ons}=39.5`$K and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c=2.5`$K.

NMR measurements were carried out on a pulse spectrometer over the temperature range of 5-300K in magnetic fields $`H_0=2.1`$ and 9.1 T. The spectra were obtained by Fourier transformation of the second half of the spin-echo signal followed the $`(\pi /2)_x\tau _{del}(\pi )_x`$ pulse sequence. The broad spectra exceeding the frequency band excited by rf-pulse were measured by summation of an array of Fourier-signals of an echo accumulated at different equidistant operating frequencies. The components of magnetic shift tensor $`(K_{iso},K_{ax})`$ for 11B (I=3/2) as well as the electric field gradient (EFG) parameters - quadrupole frequency $`\nu _Q`$ and asymmetry parameters $`\eta `$\- were determined by computer simulation of the measured NMR spectra. The powder pattern simulation program takes into account the quadrupole coupling corrections up to the second order of the perturbation theory. Positions of the features of both central line (transition $`m=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}`$) and satellite lines (transitions $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{3}{2}`$) were involved into consideration. The diamond form of BN was used as a reference.

The boron atoms in MgB2 unit cell are located at the sites with the axial symmetry of the nearest environment. The 11B nuclear has a spin 11I=3/2 and electric quadrupole moment $`{}_{}{}^{11}Q=0.0406510^{24}`$ cm2 Landolt . Thus the resonance frequency of 11B NMR-probe is determined by both hyperfine magnetic interaction and the interaction of quadrupole moment 11Q with electric field gradient (EFG) Vzz, created at the nuclear site by the electronic and ionic environments.

The NMR spectrum of 11B including all transitions is shown in Fig. 1 for $`T=300`$K. Simulation of the powder patterns NMR line shape allowed us to determine with a reasonable accuracy spherical components of the magnetic shift ($`K_{iso}`$, $`K_{ax}`$) and the EFG $`(\nu _Q,\eta )`$ tensors: $`K_{iso}`$=175(15) ppm, $`K_{ax}<30`$ ppm; $`\nu _Q=\frac{3eQ}{2I(2I1)h}V_{zz}`$ = 0.828(10)MHz; $`\eta `$=0. The measurements at different $`T`$ have demonstrated that magnetic shift and EFG parameters are independent of temperature in normal state down to $`T_c(H)`$ (see Fig. 2). Similar observation for magnetic shift of the 11B NMR central line was reported recently in Ref. Kotegawa .

Magnetic shift is decreased gradually in going to superconducting state and at $`T=20`$K$`T_c`$/2 its magnitude becomes close to zero. Unfortunately we can not evaluate precisely the magnitude of the Knight shift from the data obtained, since additional diamagnetic contribution due to supercurrents arisen around vortexes should be involved into consideration. At present time one may conclude that $`K_s`$(20K) is less than 100 ppm.

Nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate of 11B was measured using the inversion-recovery technique and working at the frequency domain. Amplitude of rf magnetic field in the pulse exceeded 100 Oe. The measurements were performed at different point of spectrum to study anisotropy of $`T_1(\theta )`$. Here $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝒄`$-axis and $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The measurements at the peak of central line give the angle-averaged magnitude of $`T_1`$. In this case $`T_1`$ was determined by fitting $`m(t)`$ data to the following expression Narath :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m(t)& =& \frac{M(\mathrm{})M(t)}{M(\mathrm{})}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t}{T_1}\right)+\frac{9}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{6t}{T_1}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
In measurements at a peak ($`𝒄𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and a step ($`𝒄𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$) of the high-frequency satellite powder pattern (see inset in Fig.3) the magnitude of $`T_1`$ was determined by fitting $`M(t)`$ data to the another expression Narath :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m(t)& =& \frac{M(\mathrm{})M(t)}{M(\mathrm{})}=\frac{1}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t}{T_1}\right)\hfill \\ & +& \frac{5}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3t}{T_1}\right)+\frac{4}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{6t}{T_1}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
The temperature dependence of the product ($`T_1T)^1`$ measured at the central line is shown in Fig. 4. In the normal state the magnitude of ($`T_1T`$)=155(5)sK is found as independent of temperature. A slightly larger value of ($`T_1T`$) was reported in Ref. Kotegawa  for bulk sample of MgB2. Independent of temperature product ($`T_1T)^1`$ may be considered as an evidence for a flatness of the $`N(E)`$ curve near the Fermi energy at the scale of $``$500K.

A rather unexpected result is obtained in measurements of $`T_1`$ at the crystallites which $`𝒄`$-axis is differently oriented with respect $`𝑯_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. As seen at Fig. 3 the $`M(t)`$ data being measured at differently oriented crystallites are fitted well to the expression (2) with the very same adjustable parameter $`T_1`$. Corresponding magnitude of the product ($`T_1T`$)=155(5)sK as was obtained for central line. Using the results of band calculations we expect to find the ratio $`T_1(cH_0)/T_1(cH_0)`$ 1.2, if to assume that nuclear spin lattice relaxation rate is monitored exclusively by hyperfine dipolar and orbital interaction between nuclear magnetic moment and p-electrons of the partly filled $`p_{x,y}`$ bands. The results obtained means that $`T_1^1`$ is determined by the Fermi contact interaction with conducting electrons of s-band or both of three partial $`p_i`$ DOS are equal (fx=fy=fz).

At temperature below $`T_c`$ nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate deviates of the Korringa behavior. No evidences for the Hebel – Slichter Hebel  coherence peak was seen in measurements near $`T_c`$ at external field of 2.1T. At temperature below 20K we approximated $`T_1`$ data by expression in the thermally-activation exponential form and found the ratio $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c>2.5`$ assuming isotropic magnitude of the superconducting energy gap in MgB2.

The authors benefited much by suggestions made by Prof.B.N. Goshchitskii and acknowledge Dr.N.I. Medvedeva and Dr.A.L. Ivanovsky for helpful discussions. Work is supported by the Russian State contract No107-1(00)-P (order No22) and Russian State Program of Support of Leading Scientific Schools (project No 00-15-96581).