text:
# Error Avoiding Quantum Codes and Dynamical Stabilization of Grover’s Algorithm

## I Introduction

According to a suggestion of Feynman  quantum systems are not only of interest for their own sake but they might also serve for practical purposes. Thus they may be used for simulating other quantum systems which are less convenient to handle or they may be used for solving computational problems more efficiently than by any other classical means. Two well known examples demonstrating this latter point are Shor’s factorization algorithm and Grover’s search algorithm .

Quantum systems which are capable of performing quantum algorithms are called quantum computers. So far several physical systems have been considered as potential candidates for quantum computers, such as trapped ions , nuclear spins of molecules  or in the context of cavity quantum electrodynamics atoms interacting with a single mode of the radiation field . To describe the operation of a quantum computer theoretically it is advantageous to refrain from a detailed physical description of the particular quantum system involved. Thus, analogous to the spirit of computer science it is more useful to concentrate on those particular aspects which are essential for the performance of quantum computation. On this abstract level a generic quantum computer consists of $`m`$ distinguishable smaller quantum systems which are frequently chosen as two-level systems with basis states $`|1`$ and $`|0`$, for example. The quantum information which can be stored in one of these two level systems is called a qubit. Thus the state space of a generic quantum computer is spanned by the so called computational basis which consists of the corresponding $`2^m`$ product states $`|b_0=|0\mathrm{}00`$, $`|b_1=|0\mathrm{}01`$, … $`|b_{2^m}=|1\mathrm{}11`$.

A typical quantum computation proceeds in several steps. Firstly, the quantum computer is prepared in an initial state. Secondly, a certain sequence of unitary transformations is performed which are called quantum gates and which usually entangle the $`m`$ qubits. Thirdly, the final result is measured. Typically the solution of a particular computational problem is obtained with a certain probability only. A general quantum algorithm takes advantage of an essential feature of quantum theory, namely the interference between probability amplitudes and the fact that the dimensionality $`D`$ of the state space of $`m`$ distinguishable qubits increases exponentially with the number of qubits, i.e. $`D=2^m`$. One of the best known quantum algorithms are the already mentioned Shor algorithm  and Grover’s search algorithm . In this latter algorithm a particular sequence of quantum gates enables one to find a specific item out of an unsorted database much faster than with any other known classical mean. This quantum algorithm was already realized experimentally for a small number of qubits .

One of the main practical problems one has to overcome in the implementation of quantum algorithms are non-ideal performances of the quantum gates  involved or random environmental influences which both tend to affect the relevant quantum coherence. To protect quantum computation against such errors two major strategies have been proposed recently, namely quantum error correction  and error avoiding quantum codes . Quantum error correction rests on the assumption that nothing is known about the physical origin of the errors affecting the quantum computation. Its methods may be considered as an extension of classical error correction techniques to the quantum domain. The approach of the error avoiding quantum codes is different. They rest on the assumption that the physical origin of the errors which affect the quantum computation is known. The main idea of this latter approach is to encode the logical information in one of those subspaces of the relevant Hilbert space which is not affected by the physical interactions responsible for the occurance of errors . Both theoretical approaches to error correction rest on the concept of redundancy which is also fundamental for classical error correcting codes. Provided the physical origin of the errors affecting a quantum computation is known it is expected that error avoiding codes offer more effective means for stabilizing quantum algorithms. This expectation is based on two facts. Firstly, there is no need for control measurements which are an essential ingredient for any error correcting code. Secondly, usually a smaller number of physical qubits is needed for the representation of a given number of logical qubits.

In the subsequent discussion it is demonstrated that this is indeed the case. By considering Grover’s quantum search algorithm it is shown that non-ideal perturbations may be corrected dynamically in an efficient way with the help of an appropriate error avoiding quantum code. As a particular example, we discuss coherent errors which may arise from systematic detunings of the physical qubits of the quantum computer from the frequency of the light pulses which realize the required quantum gates. It is shown that the corresponding error avoiding quantum code with the lowest degree of redundancy is more efficient in encoding quantum information than the corresponding optimal error correcting code which saturates the quantum Hamming bound. The proposed error avoiding quantum code consists of states only which are factorizable in the computational basis. In this respect it differs significantly from the recently proposed error avoiding code of Ref., for example, which also involves entangled states. Such factorizable codes may offer practical advantages as far as the implementation of quantum gates in error avoiding subspaces is concerned.

The article is organized as follows: In Sec. II basic facts about Grover’s quantum search algorithm are summarized. It is demonstrated that for large databases the dynamics of this quantum algorithm can be described by a two-level Hamiltonian which implies Rabi oscillations between the initial state and the search state. In Sec. III general ideas underlying the construction of error avoiding quantum codes are discussed. An efficient error avoiding quantum code is presented which is capable of stabilizing Grover’s algorithm against a particular class of coherent errors. The redundancy of this code is discussed and compared with the one resulting from error correcting codes which saturate the quantum Hamming bound. Numerical examples demonstrating the stabilizing capabilities of this error avoiding quantum code are presented in Sec. IV.

## II Grover’s quantum search algorithm

Consider an unsorted database with $`N`$ items and a certain item $`x_0`$ you are searching for. As a particular example you can imagine a telephone directory with $`N`$ entries and a particular telephone number $`x_0`$ you are looking for. Furthermore, assume that you are given a black box, i.e. a so called oracle, which can decide whether an item is $`x_0`$ or not. Thus, in mathematical terms you are given a Boolean function

$$f(x)=\delta _{x,x_0}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& x=x_0\\ 0& xx_0\end{array}$$
(1)
with $`\delta _{a,b}`$ denoting the Kronecker delta function. Usually the elements $`x`$ of the database are assumed to be described by the $`N`$ integers between zero and $`N1`$. Assuming that each application of the oracle requires one elementary step a classical random search process will require $`N1`$ steps in the worst case and one step in the best possible case. Thus, on the average a classical algorithm will need $`N/2`$ steps to find the searched item $`x_0`$. It has been shown by Grover  that with the help of his quantum search algorithm this task can be performed in $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ steps with a probability arbitrarily close to unity. The basic idea of this quantum algorithm is to rotate the initial state of the quantum computation in the direction of the searched state $`|x_0`$ by a sequence of unitary quantum versions of the oracle. It will become apparent from the subsequent discussion that apart from Hadamard transformations the dynamics of this rotation are analogous to a Rabi oscillation between the initially prepared state and the searched state $`|x_0`$. It has been shown by Zalka  that Grover’s quantum search algorithm is optimal.

### A Characteristic gate sequence of Grover’s search algorithm

In Grover’s quantum search algorithm every element of the database is represented by a state of the computational basis of the quantum computer. Thus a database which is represented by $`m`$ qubits has $`N=2^m`$ distinguishable elements. The state $`|\mathrm{0..0110..0}`$ of the computational basis, for example, corresponds to the element $`\mathrm{0..0110..0}`$ of the database in binary notation. The quantum oracle $`𝒰_f`$ is determined completely by the Boolean function of Eq.(1) and is represented by a quantum gate, i.e. by the unitary and hermitian transformation

$$𝒰_f:|x,a|x,f(x)a.$$
(2)
Thereby $`|x`$ is an arbitrary element of the computational basis and $`|a`$ is the state of an additional ancilla qubit which is discarded later. The symbol $``$ denotes addition modulo 2. This unitary form of the oracle depends on the Boolean function $`f(x)`$. As far as complexity estimates are concerned it is assumed that this unitary transformation requires one elementary step. This assumption is analogous to the complexity estimate of the corresponding classical version of this search problem.

For the subsequent discussion it is important to note that the elementary rotations in the direction of the searched quantum state $`|x_0`$ which are the key ingredient in Grover’s algorithm can be performed with the help of this unitary oracle. Thus such a rotation can be performed without explicit knowledge of the state $`|x_0`$. Its implicit knowledge through the values of the Boolean function $`f(x)`$ is already sufficient. For large values of $`N`$ it turns out that the number of elementary rotations needed to prepare state $`|x_0`$ is $`O(\sqrt{N})`$. To implement such an elementary rotation from the initial state $`|s=|0\mathrm{}0`$, for example, towards the final state $`|x_0`$ two different types of quantum gates are needed, namely Hadamard gates and controlled phase inversions.

A Hadamard gate is a unitary one-qubit operation. It produces an equal weighted superposition of the two basis states according to the rule

$`|0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+|1),`$ (3)
$`|1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|1)`$ (4)
or in matrix notation

$`H^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$

A $`m`$-qubit Hadamard gate $`H^{(2^m)}`$ is defined by the $`m`$-fold tensor product, i.e. $`H^{(2^m)}=H^{(2)}\mathrm{}H^{(2)}`$. Thus, for two qubits, for example, $`H^{(2^2)}`$ is represented by the matrix

$$H^{(2^2)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 1& 1& 1& & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& & & & \end{array}\right).$$
(5)
The Hadamard transformation is hermitian and unitary. An arbitrary matrix element $`H_{i,j}^{(2^m)}`$ of a Hadamard transformation may be written in the general form

$$H_{i,j}^{(2^m)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^m}}(1)^{ij}.$$
(6)
Thereby $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote binary numbers and the multiplication $``$ is bitwise modulo 2, i.e. for $`i=1`$, $`j=3`$ and $`m=2`$, one obtains $`H_{1,3}^{(4)}=(1/2)(1)^{(0111)}=(1/2)(1)^{(01+11)}=1/2`$. It has been shown by Grover  that this Hadamard transformation can be replaced by any other unitary one-qubit operation.

The remaining quantum gates needed for the implementation of the necessary rotation are controlled phase inversions with respect to the initial and searched states $`|s=|0\mathrm{}0`$ and $`|x_0`$. A controlled phase inversion with respect to a state $`|x`$ changes the phase of this particular state by an amount of $`\pi `$ and leaves all other states unchanged. Thus the phase inversion $`I_s`$ with respect to the initial state $`|s`$ is defined by

$`I_s|s`$ $`=`$ $`|s,`$ (7)
$`I_s|x`$ $`=`$ $`|x(xs).`$ (8)
For two qubits, for example, its matrix representation is given by

$$I_s=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
The controlled phase inversion $`I_{x_0}`$ with respect to the searched state $`|x_0`$ is defined in an analogous way. As state $`|x_0`$ is not known explicitly but only implicitly through the property $`f(x_0)=1`$ this transformation has to be performed with the help of the quantum oracle. This task can be achieved by preparing the ancilla of the oracle of Eq.(2) in state $`|a_0=1/\sqrt{2}(|0|1)`$. As a consequence one obtains the required properties for the phase inversion $`I_{x_0}`$, namely

$`|x,f(x)a_0|x,0a_0`$ (11)
$`=1/\sqrt{2}(|x,0|x,1)=|x,a_0\mathrm{for}xx_0,`$
$`|x,f(x)a_0|x,1a_0`$ (13)
$`=1/\sqrt{2}(|x,1|x,0)=|x,a_0\mathrm{for}x=x_0.`$
One should bear in mind that this controlled phase inversion can be performed with the help of the quantum oracle of Eq.(2) only without explicit knowledge of state $`|x_0`$.

Grover’s algorithm starts by preparing all $`m`$ qubits of the quantum computer in state $`|s=|0\mathrm{}0`$. An elementary rotation in the direction of the searched state $`|x_0`$ with the property $`f(x_0)=1`$ is achieved by the gate sequence

$$Q=I_sH^{(2^m)}I_{x_0}H^{(2^m)}.$$
(14)
In order to rotate the initial state $`|s`$ into state $`|x_0`$ one has to perform a sequence of $`n`$ such rotations and a final Hadamard transformation at the end, i.e.

$$|f=HQ^n|s.$$
(15)
The effect of the elementary rotation $`Q`$ is demonstrated in Fig.3 for the case of three qubits, i.e. $`m=3`$. The first Hadamard transformation $`H^{(2^3)}`$ prepares an equally weighted state. The subsequent quantum gate $`I_{x_0}`$ inverts the amplitude of the searched state $`|x_0=|111`$. Together with the subsequent Hadamard transformation and the phase inversion $`I_s`$ this gate sequence $`Q`$ amplifies the probability amplitude of the searched state $`|111`$. In this particular case an additional Hadamard transformation finally prepares the quantum computer in the searched state $`|111`$ with a probability of 0.88.

In order to determine the dependence of the ideal number of repetitions $`n`$ on the number of qubits $`m`$ it is convenient to analyze the repeated application of the gate sequence $`Q`$ according to Eq.(15) in terms of the two states $`|s`$ and $`|v=H^{(2^m)}|x_0`$ whose overlap is given by $`ϵ=s|v=s|H^{(2^m)}|x_0=2^{m/2}`$ for $`m`$ qubits. It is straightforward to show that the unitary gate sequence $`Q`$ preserves the subspace spanned by these two states, i.e.

$$Q\left(\begin{array}{c}|s\\ |v\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}14ϵ^2& 2ϵ\\ 2ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}|s\\ |v\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
Thus $`Q`$ acts like a rotation in the plane spanned by states $`|s`$ and $`|v`$. The angle of rotation is given by $`\phi =\mathrm{arcsin}(2ϵ\sqrt{1ϵ^2})`$.

After j iterations the amplitude of state $`|v`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{sin}\left[(2j+1)ϵ\right].$$
(17)
Therefore, the optimal number $`n`$ of repetitions of the gate sequence $`Q`$ is approximately given by

$$n=\frac{\pi }{4\mathrm{arcsin}\left(2^{m/2}\right)}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi }{4}\sqrt{2^m}(2^m1).$$
(18)
### B Hamiltonian representation of Grover’s algorithm

If the database contains many elements, i.e. $`Nϵ^21`$, the repeated application of the elementary rotation which is essential for Grover’s search algorithm can be described by a Hamiltonian quantum dynamics. The elementary rotation $`Q`$ can be approximated by the relation

$$Q=\mathrm{𝟏}\tau i/\mathrm{}𝐇_G(ϵ)+O(ϵ^2)$$
(19)
which involves the Hamiltonian

$$𝐇_G=2iϵ\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau }\left(|vs||sv|\right).$$
(20)
The elementary time $`\tau `$ might be interpreted as the physical time required for performing the elementary rotation $`Q`$. The Hamiltonian of Eq.(20) describes the dynamics of a quantum mechanical two level system whose degenerate energy levels $`|s`$ and $`|v`$ are coupled by a time-independent perturbation. In lowest order of $`ϵ`$ these degenerate energy levels are orthogonal. The resulting oscillations between these coupled energy levels are characterized by the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2s|v/\tau `$. Correspondingly, the repeated application of the elementary rotation $`Q`$ can be determined with the help of Trotter’s product formula , namely

$`Q^n`$ $`=`$ $`(I_sH^{(2^m)}I_{x_0}H^{(2^m)})^n=`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}𝐇_G\tau n\right)+O(ϵ^2n).`$
Thus, in the framework of this Hamiltonian description applying the elementary rotation $`Q`$ $`n`$ times is equivalent to a time evolution of the effective two-level quantum system over a time interval of magnitude $`n\tau `$. This Hamiltonian description demonstrates that the physics behind Grover’s quantum search algorithm is the same as the physics governing the Rabi oscillations between degenerate or resonantly coupled energy eigenstates. As the errors entering Eq.(22) are of order $`O(ϵ^2n)`$ this Hamiltonian description is applicable only as long as $`ϵ^2nn/2^m1`$. Thus for a given size of the database it is valid only as long as the number of iterations is sufficiently small, i.e. $`n2^m`$. However, as Grover’s search algorithm needs approximately $`(\pi \sqrt{2^m}/4)`$ steps to find the searched item the main condition which restricts the validity of this Hamiltonian description is a large size of the database, i.e. $`ϵ^21/N1`$.

### C An example of coherent errors

So far we have been concentrating on the ideal dynamics of Grover’s quantum search algorithm. However, in practical applications it is very difficult to realize this search algorithm in an ideal way. Usually the ideal dynamics are affected by numerous perturbations. Physically one may distinguish two different kinds of errors, namely incoherent and coherent ones. Typically incoherent perturbations originate from a coupling of the physical qubits of a quantum computer to an uncontrollable environment. As a consequence the resulting errors are of a stochastic nature. Coherent errors may arise from non-ideal quantum gates which lead to a unitary but non-ideal time evolution of the quantum algorithm. A simple example of this latter type of errors are systematic detunings from resonance of the light pulses with which the required quantum gates are realized on the physical qubits. In the Hamiltonian formulation of Grover’s algorithm such systematic detunings may be described by a perturbing Hamiltonian of the form

$$𝐇_d=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _i\sigma _z^{(i)}.$$
(23)
In Eq.(23) it has been assumed that Grover’s quantum algorithm is realized by $`m`$ qubits and that the $`i`$-th qubit is detuned with respect to the ideal transition frequency by an amount $`\omega _i`$. The Pauli spin-operator of the $`i`$-th qubit is denoted $`\sigma _z^{(i)}`$. In the presence of these systematic detunings and for a large number of qubits the dynamics of Grover’s algorithm are described by the Hamiltonians of Eqs.(20) and (23).

In order to obtain insight into the influence of this type of coherent errors the performance of Grover’s algorithm under repeated applications of the elementary rotation $`Q`$ is depicted in Fig. 5. The dynamics of the ideal Grover algorithm are depicted by the dashed line for the case of three qubits, i.e. $`m=3`$. The Rabi oscillations with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2v|s/\tau `$ are clearly visible. The solid line shows the probability of observing the quantum computer in state $`|x_0`$ in a case in which all the qubits are detuned from their ideal resonance frequency. One notices the deviations from the ideal behaviour. Due to the coherent nature of the errors the time evolution of the non-ideal algorithm exhibits revival phenomena .

## III Error avoiding quantum codes

In general there are two different strategies for correcting errors in quantum information processing. If nothing is known about the physical origin of the errors affecting a qubit one can use general quantum error correcting schemes. They may be viewed as generalizations of classical error correction techniques to the quantum domain . Typically they involve a suitably chosen quantum code and a sequence of quantum measurements. This code has to map all possible states which may result from arbitrary environmental influences onto orthogonal states. According to basic postulates of quantum theory these orthogonal quantum states can be distinguished and based on the result of a control measurement one may restore the original quantum state. So far these general techniques have been applied mainly to the stabilization of static quantum memories . It is still an open question whether these general methods are also useful and efficient for the dynamical stabilization of quantum algorithms.

The second possible error correction strategy which seems to be well adopted also for stabilizing quantum algorithms is based on error avoiding quantum codes . However, these latter methods are applicable only, if the physical origin of the errors is known. The main idea is to encode the quantum information in those subspaces of the Hilbert space which are not affected by the errors. This aim is achieved by restricting oneself to degenerate eigenspaces of the relevant error operators. Thus, in the special case of a single error operator, say $`𝐄`$, the basis states $`\{|\psi _i\}`$ of such an error free subspace have to fulfill the relation

$$𝐄|\psi _i=c|\psi _i.$$
(24)
In the above mentioned example of coherent errors which may affect Grover’s algorithm this error operator is given by the Hamiltonian of Eq.(23), i.e. $`𝐄=𝐇_d`$. It is crucial for the success of an error avoiding code that the eigenvalue $`c`$ of Eq.(24) does not depend on the states belonging to the error free subspace. This implies that all possible elements of the error free subspace of the general form $`_i\alpha _i|\psi _i`$ are affected by the error operator in the same way, i.e.

$$𝐄(\underset{i}{}\alpha _i|\psi _i)=c(\underset{i}{}\alpha _i|\psi _i).$$
(25)
It is apparent that a non-trivial error avoiding code is possible only, if the eigenspace of the error operator $`𝐄`$ is degenerate.

### A An error avoiding quantum code stabilizing coherent errors

As an example for an error avoiding quantum code let us consider the case of coherent errors which may affect Grover’s quantum algorithm and which can be characterized by the Hamiltonian $`𝐇_d`$ of Eq.(23). In the simple case of equal detunings, i.e. $`\omega _1=\mathrm{}=\omega _m\omega `$, the error operator $`𝐄`$ reduces to the form

$$𝐇_e=\mathrm{}\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\sigma _z^{(i)}.$$
(26)
It is easy to find highly degenerate error free subspaces of this error operator. All states with a fixed number of ones and zeroes constitute a degenerate eigenspace of $`𝐇_e`$. For an even number of qubits it is possible to find an error avoiding subspace with eigenvalue $`c=0`$ so that

$$(𝐇_G+𝐇_e)|\psi =𝐇_G|\psi $$
(27)
for all elements $`|\psi `$ of this subspace. For this purpose one is looking for quantum states with zero total spin. For four qubits, for example, this subspace is defined by the basis vectors $`|0011,|0101,|0110,|1001,|1010,|1100`$ and involves all states with the same number of zeros and ones. Four of these states may be used as a basis for the state space of two logical qubits. For these eigenstates the error Hamiltonian $`𝐇_e`$ maps onto zero, e.g.

$`𝐇_e|0011=\mathrm{}\omega {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m=4}{}}}\sigma _z^{(i)}|0011=\mathrm{}\omega (1+111)|0011=0.`$

This particular error avoiding code works ideal for equal detunings of all qubits from resonance. It is formed by quantum states which factorize in the computational basis. So it is expected that in this error free subspace the encoding of quantum information and the implementation of quantum gates is considerably easier than in cases in which the error avoiding codes involve entangled quantum states.

### B Implementation of quantum gates in an error free subspace

To realize a quantum algorithm in an error free subspace one has to implement the necessary quantum gates in such a way that they do not mix the error free subspace with its orthogonal complement . Consider two logical qubits, for example, which are encoded by four physical qubits. For this purpose one may choose the states $`|0011,|0101,|0110,|1001`$ which have been mentioned in the previous subsection. This error avoiding code works ideal for stabilizing Grover’s algorithm with respect to the error operator $`𝐇_e`$ of Eq.(26) provided it is possible to realize the required unitary transformations, namely Hadamard transformations and the controlled phase inversions.

Consider as an example a Hadamard transformation which acts in a two dimensional error avoiding subspace of this kind. Thus it is assumed that the two basis states of this error avoiding code are given by $`|01`$ and $`|10`$ and that they involve two physical qubits. Thus, we are looking for a transformation which performs the mappings

$`|01`$ $``$ $`1/\sqrt{2}(|01+|10),`$ (28)
$`|10`$ $``$ $`1/\sqrt{2}(|01|10)`$ (29)
and which does not mix the subspace spanned by $`|01`$ and $`|10`$ with the orthogonal space spanned by the basis states $`|00`$ and $`|11`$. In matrix notation we are looking for a unitary matrix of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill & \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill \\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill & \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(30)
with $``$ denoting arbitrary entries which ensure unitarity. Such a transformation can be achieved by the gate sequence $`CNOT_{21}(\mathrm{𝟏}\stackrel{~}{H}^{(2)})CNOT_{21}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{(2)}=i\sigma _yH^{(2)}`$. Thereby $`CNOT_{21}`$ is a controlled-not operation with the first qubit as the target and the second qubit as the control qubit and $`\sigma _y`$ is the Pauli Matrix. Thus in matrix notation this relation yields

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)=`$ (43)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).`$ (48)
Obviously the final result does not mix the error avoiding subspace with its orthogonal complement. But in the intermediate steps such a mixing takes place. However, for practical purposes it is enough to ensure that the time spent by the quantum computer in the orthogonal complement of the error avoiding subspace is sufficiently small so that the resulting errors can be neglected for all practical purposes. Under these circumstances it is expected that the implementation of quantum algorithms in error avoiding subspaces is a powerful tool for stabilizing quantum codes.

### C Code size of error avoiding quantum codes

In order to estimate the redundancy which has to be introduced for stabilizing a quantum algorithm by an error avoiding quantum code let us consider the particular example of Sec. IIIA in more detail. It has been argued that in the case of coherent errors which can be characterized by the Hamiltonian of Eq.(26) an error avoiding quantum code can be constructed from basis states with equal numbers of ones and zeroes. In order to minimize the redundancy it is desirable to maximize the dimension of the resulting error avoiding subspace. If one starts with $`m`$ physical qubits the dimension $`D(m,q)`$ of the corresponding error avoiding subspace with $`q`$ qubits in state $`|1`$ and $`(mq)`$ qubits in state $`|0`$, for example, is given by

$$D(m,q)=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ q\end{array}\right)\frac{m!}{q!(mq)!}.$$
(49)
From elementary properties of binomial coefficients it is clear that $`D(m,q)`$ is maximum for $`q=m/2`$. Thus for an even number of qubits $`m`$ the largest possible dimension of the resulting error avoiding subspace is given by

$$D(m,m/2)=\frac{m!}{[(m/2)!]^2}2^m\sqrt{\frac{2}{m\pi }}(m1).$$
(50)
Thus, in this case it is possible to encode

$`l`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}_2D(m,m/2)`$ (52)
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}_2m}{2}}+\mathrm{log}_2\sqrt{2/\pi }(m1)`$
logical qubits with $`m`$ physical ones. It is instructive to compare the redundancy of this error avoiding code as described by Eq.(52) with the ones resulting from general error correcting quantum codes which saturate the quantum Hamming bound . If one wants to correct arbitrary errors of maximum length $`t`$ with a general error correcting quantum code the number of physical and logical qubits $`m`$ and $`l`$ have to fulfill the so called quantum Hamming bound, i.e.

$$2^l\underset{r=0}{\overset{t}{}}3^r\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ r\end{array}\right)2^m.$$
(53)
This inequality reflects the fact that in a general error correcting quantum code the action of different error operators onto any of the logical qubits must lead to orthogonal quantum states. The dimension of the resulting Hilbert space as described by the left hand side of the inequality (53) has to be smaller than the dimension of the Hilbert space of all physical qubits. Thus the number of logical qubits obtainable by a general error correcting code which is capable of correcting all possible errors of maximum length one, i.e. $`t=1`$, cannot be larger than

$$l_>=m\mathrm{log}_2(3m+1).$$
(54)
Comparing Eq.(52) with Eq.(54) one realizes that the redundancy of this particular error avoiding quantum code is smaller than the one resulting from saturating the Hamming bound with a general error correcting code capable of correcting errors of maximum length one, i.e.

$$ll_>\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}_2m+\mathrm{log}_2\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}>0(m1).$$
(55)
However, this reduction of redundancy is based on the fact that the error avoiding code obeying Eq.(52) can stabilize errors only which are described by the Hamiltonian of Eq.(26). Usually more general errors cannot be corrected with this code.

## IV Numerical examples

In the previous section we have developed an error avoiding quantum code which is capable of correcting coherent errors. These errors were assumed to be caused by systematic detunings of the physical qubits of the quantum computer from the frequency of the laser pulses implementing the action of the quantum gates. This error avoiding quantum code works perfect provided all physical qubits are detuned from the frequency of these laser pulses by the same amount. However, in realistic situations this case is scarcely realized. For the realistic assumption of unequal detunings in general the eigenstates of $`𝐇_d`$ are non-degenerate so that it is not possible to construct a perfect error avoiding quantum code. Therefore the practical question arises whether the presented error avoiding quantum code of Sec. III is still useful for stabilizing quantum algorithms against arbitrary systematic detunings.

The dynamics of Grover’s algorithm in the presence of arbitrary detunings are depicted in Fig. 7. The dashed line represents the ideal dynamics in the absence of detunings for the case of 6 qubits as evaluated from the Hamiltonian of Eq.(20). The characteristic Rabi oscillations are clearly apparent. The corresponding dynamics for 8 qubits in the presence of arbitrarily chosen detunings are depicted by the dotted line in Fig.7. It is apparent that in this case a quantum search for state $`|x_0`$ is not successful at all. However, as apparent from the solid line of Fig. 7 encoding the quantum information by the error avoiding code of Sec.III improves the performance considerably. Despite the fact that this error avoiding code has not been designed for these detunings it almost succeeds in finding the searched quantum state $`|x_0`$ after a number of iterations which is close to the ideal case (compare with Eq.(18)).

In order to obtain more insight into the stabilizing properties of this error avoiding code let us investigate the probability of success in the presence of arbitrary detunings in more detail. For this purpose we consider 8 physical qubits whose detunings $`\omega _i`$ are distributed randomly according to a normal distribution. According to Fig.6 these 8 physical qubits are capable of encoding 6 logical qubits. In Fig. 8 the average value of the maximum probability of finding the quantum computer in the searched state $`|x_0`$ is depicted for various values of the variance of the randomly chosen detunings. The lower sequence of dots (stars) refers to Grover’s algorithms without error avoiding encoding and the upper sequence of points (diamonds) refers to error avoiding encoding according to Sec. III. It is apparent that error avoiding encoding is very successful as long as the differences between the detunings of the qubits is sufficiently small. Only in extreme cases in which these differences become comparable to the typical magnitudes of the detunings this type this error avoiding code is no longer capable of stabilizing Grover’s algorithm in a satisfactory way.

## V Summary and Conclusions

It has been demonstrated that error avoiding quantum codes may offer efficient methods for stabilizing quantum codes dynamically against those types of errors whose physical origin is known. As a particular example we discussed the stabilization of Grover’s quantum search algorithm against coherent errors which may arise from systematic detunings of the physical qubits from the frequency of the light pulses implementing the quantum gates. Though originally the error avoiding quantum code has been constructed for the special case of equal detunings of all the qubits it has been shown that it is also capable of stabilizing this quantum algorithm in other cases to a satisfactory degree. The proposed error avoiding quantum code consists of quantum states only which are factorizable in the computational basis. This may offer advantages as far as the implementation of the necessary quantum gates in this error free subspace is concerned. Furthermore, this quantum code has also other noteworthy properties, such as a redundancy which is lower than the one of an optimal error correcting quantum code saturating the quantum Hamming bound. Though the stabilizing ability of error avoiding quantum codes has been demonstrated for one particular quantum code and one particular class of coherent errors only it is expected that similar capabilities are also found in more general cases which may also involve incoherent errors.
This work is supported by the DFG within the SPP ‘Quanteninformationsverarbeitung’. Stimulating discussions with Thomas Beth, Markus Grassl and Dominik Janzing are acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# GRAVITY-MODES IN ZZ CETI STARS IV. AMPLITUDE SATURATION BY PARAMETRIC INSTABILITY

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Within an instability strip of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{eff}}10^3\mathrm{K}`$ centered at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}1.2\times 10^3\mathrm{K}`$, hydrogen white dwarfs exhibit multiple excited gravity modes with $`10^2P10^3\mathrm{s}`$. Convective driving, originally proposed by Brickhill (nonad-brick90 (1990), nonad-brick91 (1991)), is the overstability mechanism (Goldreich & Wu nl-paperI (1998), hereafter Paper I). Individual modes maintain small amplitudes; typical fractional flux variations range from a few mma to a few tens of mma.111$`1`$ mma of light variation is approximately $`0.1\%`$ fractional change in flux.

The nonlinear mechanism responsible for saturating mode amplitudes has not previously been identified. We demonstrate that parametric resonance between an overstable parent g-mode and a pair of lower frequency damped daughter g-modes sets an upper envelope to the parent modes’ amplitudes.222The g-mode dispersion relation allows plenty of good resonances. Moreover, the envelope we calculate reproduces the broad trends found from observational determinations of mode amplitudes in ZZ Ceti stars. Our investigation follows pioneering work by Dziembowski & Krolikowska (nl-dziem85 (1985)) on overstable acoustic modes in $`\delta `$-Scuti stars. They showed that parametric resonance with damped daughter g-modes saturates the growth of the overstable p-modes at approximately their observed amplitudes.

This paper is comprised of the following parts. In §2 we introduce parametric instability for a pair of damped daughter modes resonantly coupled to an overstable parent mode. We evaluate the parent mode’s threshold amplitude and describe the evolution of the instability to finite amplitude. §3 is devoted to the choice of optimal daughter pairs. We discuss relevant properties of 3-mode coupling coefficients, and the constraints imposed by frequency resonance relations and angular selection rules. Evaluation of the upper envelope for parent mode amplitudes set by parametric resonance is the subject of §4. Numerical results are interpreted in terms of analytic scaling relations and compared to observations. §5 contains a discussion of a variety of issues leftover from this investigation. Detailed derivations are relegated to a series of Appendices.

The stellar models used in this investigation were provided by Bradley (nl-bradley96 (1996)). Their essential characteristics are $`M_{}=0.6M_{}`$, $`\mathrm{log}(g/\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^2)=8.0`$, hydrogen layer mass $`1.5\times 10^4M_{}`$, and helium layer mass $`1.5\times 10^2M_{}`$.

## 2. PARAMETRIC INSTABILITY

In this section we introduce parametric instability (Landau & Lifshitz nl-landau76 (1976)). We present the threshold criterion for the instability, and discuss relevant aspects of the subsequent evolution. Depending upon the parameters, the modes either approach a stable steady-state or develop limit cycles. We describe the energies attained by the parent and daughter modes in either case. Many of the results in this section were obtained earlier by Dziembowski (nl-dziem82 (1982)).

### 2.1. Instability Threshold

Parametric instability in the context of our investigation is a special form of resonant 3-mode coupling. It refers to the destabilization of a pair of damped daughter modes by an overstable parent mode. The frequencies of the three modes satisfy the approximate resonance condition $`\omega _p\omega _{d_1}+\omega _{d_2}`$, where the subscripts $`p`$ and $`d_1,d_2`$ denote parent and two daughter modes, respectively.

Equations governing the temporal evolution of mode amplitudes are most conveniently derived from an action principle (Newcomb nl-newcomb62 (1962), Kumar & Goldreich nl-kumar89 (1989)). The amplitude equations take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_p}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _p}{2}}A_pi\omega _pA_p+i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}\omega _p\kappa A_{d_1}A_{d_2},`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_{d_1}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{d_1}}{2}}A_2i\omega _{d_1}A_{d_1}+i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}\omega _{d_1}\kappa A_pA_{d_2}^{},`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_{d_2}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{d_2}}{2}}A_{d_2}i\omega _{d_2}A_{d_2}+i{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}}\omega _{d_2}\kappa A_pA_{d_1}^{}.`$ (3)
Here, $`A_j`$ is the complex amplitude of mode $`j`$; it is related to the mode energy $`E_j`$ by $`|A_j|^2=E_j`$. The $`\gamma _j`$ ($`>0`$) denote linear energy growth and damping rates, and $`\kappa `$ is the nonlinear coupling constant (cf. §3.1). Our amplitude equations differ only in notation from those given by Dziembowski (nl-dziem82 (1982)).

The instability threshold follows from a straightforward linear stability analysis applied to equations (2) and (3). The effects of nonlinear interactions on the parent mode are ignored as is appropriate for infinitesimal daughter mode amplitudes. The critical parent mode amplitude satisfies (Vandakurov nl-vandakurov79 (1979), Dziembowski nl-dziem82 (1982)).

$$|A_p|^2=\frac{\gamma _{d_1}\gamma _{d_2}}{18\kappa ^2\omega _{d_1}\omega _{d_2}}\left[1+\left(\frac{2\delta \omega }{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}}\right)^2\right],$$
(4)
where $`\delta \omega \omega _{d_1}+\omega _{d_2}\omega _p`$.

### 2.2. Dynamics

The amplitude equations (1)-(3) have a unique equilibrium solution given by

$`|A_p|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{d_1}\gamma _{d_2}}{18\kappa ^2\omega _{d_1}\omega _{d_2}}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\delta \omega }{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}}\right)^2\right],`$ (5)
$`|A_{d_1}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}{18\kappa ^2\omega _{d_2}\omega _p}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\delta \omega }{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}}\right)^2\right],`$ (6)
$`|A_{d_2}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{d_1}\gamma _p}{18\kappa ^2\omega _{d_1}\omega _p}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\delta \omega }{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}}\right)^2\right],`$ (7)
together with

$$\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2\delta \omega }{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}.$$
(8)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\theta _{d_1}+\theta _{d_2}\theta _p`$, where the complex amplitude $`A_j`$ may be written as $`A_j=|A_j|e^{i\theta _j}`$. Note that equation (5) is almost identical to the threshold criterion (eq. ) for $`\gamma _p\gamma _d`$ which is the case that concerns us. Here $`\gamma _d=(\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2})/2`$ is the characteristic damping rate for the daughter modes. It is also worth mentioning that, in this limit, the parent mode energy is independent of $`\gamma _p`$.

The equilibrium state is a stable attractor for mode triplets with $`|\delta \omega |>\gamma _d`$, and unstable otherwise (Wersinger et al. nl-wersinger80 (1980), Dziembowski nl-dziem82 (1982)). Figures 1a & 1b illustrate these two types of behaviors. Triplets with unstable equilibria undergo a variety of limit cycles. These share a number of common features. The parent mode’s amplitude remains close to its equilibrium (threshold) value, with slow rises on time scale $`\gamma _p^1`$ followed by precipitous drops on time scale $`\gamma _d^1`$. The daughter modes’ amplitudes stay far below their equilibrium values for most of the cycle, but peak with amplitudes comparable to that of the parent mode for a brief interval of length $`\gamma _d^1`$ shortly after the parent mode amplitude reaches its maximum value. During this brief interval, the energy which the parent mode has slowly accumulated is transferred to and dissipated by the daughter modes. So we see that, independent of its stability, the equilibrium state defines the parent mode’s amplitude. This is confirmed by Figure 2a. We employ this result in §3 where we predict upper limits for g-mode amplitudes in pulsating white dwarfs. The time-averaged energies of the daughter modes are also found to be consistent with equations (6)-(7) (Fig. 2b).

## 3. CHOOSING THE BEST DAUGHTER PAIRS

The discussion in the previous section shows that an overstable parent mode’s amplitude saturates at a value close to the threshold for parametric instability. Although each overstable parent mode has many potential daughter pairs, the most important pair is the one with the lowest instability threshold. This section is devoted to identifying these optimal daughter pairs, a task which separates into two independent parts, maximization of $`\kappa ^2`$ and minimization of $`(\delta \omega ^2+\gamma _d^2)`$.

### 3.1. Three-Mode Coupling Coefficients

The 3-mode coupling coefficient characterizes the lowest order nonlinear interactions among stellar modes. A compact form suitable for adiabatic modes under the Cowling approximation is derived in Kumar & Goldreich (nl-kumar89 (1989));

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x{\displaystyle \frac{p}{6}}\{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_11)^2(\mathbf{}𝝃)^3`$ (9)
$`+3(\mathrm{\Gamma }_11)(\mathbf{}𝝃)\xi _{;j}^i\xi _{;i}^j+2\xi _{;j}^i\xi _{;k}^j\xi _{;i}^k\},`$
where $`p`$ is the unperturbed pressure, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the adiabatic index, $`𝝃`$ is the Lagrangian displacement, the symbol ‘;’ denotes covariant derivative, and the integration is over the volume of the star. This expression for $`\kappa `$ is symmetric with respect to the three modes. Note that the displacements enter only through components of their gradients. The present form is not suitable for accurate numerical computation. We derive a more appropriate version in §A.1 (eq. \[A15\]).

Each eigenmode of a spherical star is characterized by three eigenvalues $`n,\mathrm{},m`$; $`n`$ is the number of radial nodes in the radial displacement eigenfunction, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the spherical degree, and $`m`$ is the azimuthal number.333The angular dependence is described by a spherical harmonic $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$. Integration over solid angle enforces the following selection rules on triplets with non-vanishing $`\kappa `$: $`|\mathrm{}_{d_2}\mathrm{}_{d_1}|\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}_{d_1}+\mathrm{}_{d_2}`$, $`\mathrm{}_p+\mathrm{}_{d_1}+\mathrm{}_{d_2}`$ even, and $`m_p=m_{d_1}+m_{d_2}`$ (see §A.1). These selection rules guarantee the conservation of angular momentum during nonlinear interactions. The magnitude of $`\kappa `$ is largest when the eigenfunctions of the daughter modes are radially similar in the upper evanescent zone of the parent mode. Radial similarity requires near equality of the vertical components of WKB wavevectors, $`k_z`$, where for gravity modes $`k_z^2(N^2/\omega ^21)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/r^2`$ (eq. \[A2\] of Paper I) with $`N^2`$ being the Brunt-Väisälä frequency, $`r`$ the radius, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$. We take $`N\omega _p`$ as the major contribution to the peak value of $`|\kappa |`$ comes from the region just above $`z_{\omega _p}`$, the upper boundary of the parent mode’s propagating cavity. The g-mode dispersion relation applicable for $`\omega 10^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ is $`\omega \mathrm{}/n`$ (see Fig. 4 of Paper I). We find that $`\kappa `$ is largest when

$$\frac{n_{d_1}}{n_{d_2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d_1}\omega _{d_1}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{d_2}\omega _{d_2}}\left(\frac{\omega _p^2\omega _{d_1}^2}{\omega _p^2\omega _{d_2}^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(10)
Taking $`\mathrm{}_p=1`$, $`\mathrm{}_{d_2}=\mathrm{}_{d_1}+1`$, and evaluating the above relation for $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}<10`$, we locate the peak of $`\kappa `$ to be at

$$n_{d_1}n_{d_2}0.7n_p.$$
(11)
Since a fraction $`n_p^1`$ of the nodes of each daughter mode lie in the region above $`z_{\omega _p}`$, the peak has a width of order $`n_p`$ when measured in $`n_{d_1}n_{d_2}`$. Figure 3 illustrates the behavior of $`\kappa `$ for a variety of combinations of parent and daughter modes.

As we show in §A.2, the maximum value of $`|\kappa |`$ is of order

$$|\kappa |_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{\left(n_p^3\tau _{\omega _p}L\right)^{1/2}}.$$
(12)
Here $`L`$ is the stellar luminosity and $`\tau _{\omega _p}`$ is the thermal timescale at $`z_{\omega _p}`$. This is compared with numerical results in Figure 4. Note that the maximum value of $`\kappa `$ depends entirely upon the properties of the parent mode and not at all upon those of its daughters.

### 3.2. Frequency Mismatch and Damping Rates

Because the maximum value of $`|\kappa |`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{d_2}`$, we choose these parameters to minimize $`(\delta \omega ^2+\gamma _d^2)`$.

Consider an $`\mathrm{}_p,m_p`$ parent mode. For each choice of $`\mathrm{}_{d_1},\mathrm{}_{d_2}`$, there are of order $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}n_p^2`$ daughter pairs for which $`\kappa `$ is close to its maximum value. The factor $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$ arises from the freedom in choosing $`m_{d_1}`$, while the factor $`n_p^2`$ comes from the width of maximum $`|\kappa |`$ at each $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$. Relaxing the value of $`\mathrm{}_{d_2}`$ subject to the constraint of the angular selection rules increases the number of pairs by a factor of order $`\mathrm{}_p`$. Now replace $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$ by a running variable $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. The number of pairs with $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$ is of order $`\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}_{d_1}^2n_p^2`$. The distribution of the $`\delta \omega `$ values of these pairs is uniform between $`0`$ and $`n_p\omega _{d_1}/n_{d_1}`$.444The factor $`n_p`$ arises because the peak in $`\kappa `$ has a width $`|n_{d_1}n_{d_2}|n_p`$. Statistically, the minimum frequency mismatch

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \frac{\omega _{d_1}}{n_{d_1}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}_{d_1}^2n_p}\frac{\omega _p}{\mathrm{}_{d_1}^3n_p^2},$$
(13)
where the low frequency limit of the dispersion relation, $`\omega \mathrm{}/n`$, is assumed in going from the first to the second relation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. Our estimate for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ assumes that rotation lifts $`m`$ degeneracy. If it does not, the minimum frequency mismatch is increased by a factor of $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$.

Next we describe how $`\gamma `$ varies with $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. There are two regimes of relevance to this investigation. In the quasiadiabatic limit (cf. §4.4 of paper I),555Overstable modes are quasiadiabatic so this estimate for $`\gamma `$ applies to them as well as to damped modes.

$$\gamma \frac{1}{n\tau _\omega }\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\omega }\right)^6.$$
(14)
In the strongly nonadiabatic limit (see §B.1),

$$\gamma \frac{\omega }{\pi n}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{}\omega ^{0.75}\mathrm{}^{0.2},$$
(15)
where $``$ is the amplitude reflection coefficient at the top of the mode’s cavity. The transition between the quasiadiabatic and strongly nonadiabatic limits is marked by a significant reduction of $``$ by radiative diffusion. The behavior of $`\gamma `$ as a function of $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ is illustrated in Figure 5. Radial similarity of the daughter modes to which a given parent mode couples most strongly (eq.) implies $`\gamma _{d_1}\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _d`$.

The minimum of $`(\delta \omega ^2+\gamma _d^2)`$ is attained for daughter pairs that satisfy $`\delta \omega ^2\gamma _d^2`$. With increasing $`n_p`$, the value of $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}`$ at which this occurs decreases from a few to unity (see Fig. 6). For sufficiently large values of $`n_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \gamma _d`$ even for $`\mathrm{}_{d_1}=1`$.

## 4. UPPER ENVELOPE OF PARENT MODE AMPLITUDES

Parametric instability provides an upper envelope to the amplitudes of overstable modes. Coupling of an overstable parent mode to a single pair of daughter modes suffices to maintain the parent mode’s amplitude near the threshold value (cf. §2.2). The energy gained by the overstable parent mode and transferred to the daughter modes may be disposed of by linear radiative damping or by further nonlinear coupling to granddaughter modes.

The results presented in this section are obtained from numerical computations and displayed in a series of figures. The general trends they exhibit are best understood in terms of analytic scaling relations. We derive these first in order to be able to refer to them as we describe each figure.

Excited modes of ZZ Ceti stars are usually detected through photometric measurements of flux variations, and in a few cases through spectroscopic measurements of horizontal velocity variations. Hence we calculate surface amplitudes of fractional flux, $`\mathrm{\Delta }F/F`$, and horizontal velocity, $`v_h`$, variations.666In this section we drop subscripts on parent mode parameters and denote daughter mode parameters by a subscript $`d`$. Each of these is directly related to the near surface amplitude of the Lagrangian pressure perturbation, $`\delta p/p`$. The threshold value of the latter is obtained by combining equations (4) and (12) with the normalization factor $`(n\tau _\omega L)^{1/2}`$ given by equation (A28) of Paper I. Thus

$$\frac{\delta p}{p}n\left[\left(\frac{\gamma _d}{\omega }\right)^2+\left(\frac{\delta \omega }{\omega }\right)^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
(16)
Adopting relations expressing $`v_h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F/F`$ in terms of $`\delta p/p`$ from §3 of Paper I, we arrive at

$$v_h\frac{\omega Rn}{[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)]^{1/2}}\left[\left(\frac{\gamma _d}{\omega }\right)^2+\left(\frac{\delta \omega }{\omega }\right)^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(17)
and

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F}{F}\frac{n}{\left[1+\left(\omega \tau _c\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}\left[\left(\frac{\gamma _d}{\omega }\right)^2+\left(\frac{\delta \omega }{\omega }\right)^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(18)
In the above, $`R`$ denotes the stellar radius, and $`\tau _c`$ is the thermal time constant describing the low pass filtering action of the convection zone on flux variations input at its base.777$`\tau _c3\tau _{\mathrm{th}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{th}}`$ is evaluated at $`z_b`$.

Figure 7 displays calculated values for amplitudes of overstable modes limited by parametric instability. The rise of $`|\delta p/p|`$ with increasing mode period mainly reflects the corresponding rise of the damping rates of the daughter modes (cf. §3.2) as indicated by equation (16). At the longer periods, the values of $`|\delta p/p|`$ decline with decreasing $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This is a subtle consequence of the deepening of the convection zone which pushes down the top of the daughter modes’ cavities, thus reducing their damping rates (see §5.2 of Wu & Goldreich nl-paperII (1999), hereafter Paper II). The behavior of $`|v_h|`$ is similar to that of $`|\delta p/p|`$ except that $`|v_h|`$ decreases relative to $`|\delta p/p|`$ with increasing $`\mathrm{}`$ as shown by comparison of equations (16) and (17). A new feature present in the run of $`|\delta F/F|`$ verses mode period is the low pass filtering action of the convection zone as expressed by the factor $`[1+(\omega \tau _c)^2]^{1/2}`$ in equation (18). This factor causes $`|\delta F/F|`$ to rise slightly more steeply than $`|\delta p/p|`$ with increasing mode period. It is also responsible for a more dramatic decrease in $`|\delta F/F|`$ with decreasing $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at fixed mode period. Since $`|v_h|`$ does not suffer from this visibility reduction, velocity variations may be observable in stars that are cooler than those at the red edge of the instability strip.

Figure 8 reproduces a summary of observational data on mode amplitudes from Clemens (amp-clemens95 (1995)). Each star is represented by a point showing the relation between the V-band photometric amplitude in its largest mode and the amplitude weighted mean period of all its observed modes. The latter quantity is a surrogate for the star’s effective temperature in the sense that longer mean periods correspond to lower effective temperatures (Clemens amp-clemens95 (1995), Paper I). Our theoretical predictions for the amplitudes of $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes limited by parametric instability are shown by a solid line obtained by interpolation from the numerical results displayed in Figure 7. Two features of this figure are worthy of comment.

For a few low order overstable modes, $`n_p3`$ at $`\mathrm{}_p=1`$, $`\delta \omega `$ is more significant than $`\gamma _d`$ in determining the best daughter pair (Fig. 6). The best daughter pairs for these modes have $`\mathrm{}`$ values of a few and identities which depend sensitively on minor differences among stars. Thus we expect amplitudes of short period overstable modes to show large star to star variations. That the $`n=1,\mathrm{}=1`$ mode is detected in only about one half of the hot DAVs (see Figure 4 of Clemens amp-clemens95 (1995)) is consistent with the expected statistical variations in $`\delta \omega `$.

Overstable $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes with periods longer than $`800\mathrm{s}`$ ($`n_p20`$) are probably not saturated by parametric instability. Their maximum $`|\kappa |`$ is severely reduced below the adiabatic value by the strong nonadiabaticity of their daughter modes (§B.2). Other mechanisms that contribute towards saturating these modes are discussed in §5.

## 5. DISCUSSION

### 5.1. Turbulent Saturation

Turbulent convection severely reduces the vertical gradient of the horizontal velocity of g-modes in the convection zone. As a result, a shear layer forms at the boundary between the bottom of the convection zone and the top of the radiative interior (Goldreich & Wu nl-paperIII (1999), hereafter Paper III). Kelvin-Helmholtz instability of this layer provides a nonlinear dissipation mechanism for overstable modes. An overstable mode’s amplitude cannot grow beyond the value at which nonlinear damping due to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability balances its linear convective driving. Equation (44) of Paper III provides an estimate for the value at which this mechanism saturates the surface amplitude of $`(\delta p/p)`$;

$$\left(\frac{\delta p}{p}\right)\frac{0.1}{C_D}\frac{[(\omega \tau _c)^2+1]^{1/2}[(\omega \tau _c)^21]}{\omega \tau _c}\frac{Lz_\omega ^2}{Rz_b}.$$
(19)
Our ignorance of the complicated physics involved in a nonlinear shear layer is covered by the range of possible values of the dimensionless drag coefficient, $`C_D`$. Terrestrial experiments indicate that $`C_D`$ falls between $`10^3`$ and $`10^1`$. The dashed lines in Figure 8 show the effect of including nonlinear turbulent damping in addition to parametric instability on limiting mode amplitudes. Amplitudes of overstable modes saturated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability are uncertain because $`C_D`$ is poorly constrained.

### 5.2. Granddaughter Modes

Here we answer the following questions. Under what conditions do daughter modes excite granddaughter modes by parametric instability?888In this subsection subscripts $`p`$, $`d`$, and $`g`$ refer to parent, daughter, and granddaughter modes. What are the consequences if they do? In §2.2 we show how parametric instability of linearly damped daughter modes maintains the amplitude of a parent mode close to its equilibrium value. In order to dispose of the energy they receive from the parent mode, the time averaged energies of the daughter modes must be close to their equilibrium values. This raises a worry. Suppose the daughters are prevented from reaching their equilibrium amplitudes by parametric instability of granddaughter modes Then they would not be able to halt the amplitude growth of the parent mode.

To answer the first of these questions, we calculate the ratio, denoted by the symbol $`𝒮`$, between the threshold amplitude for a daughter mode to excite granddaughter modes and its equilibrium amplitude under parametric excitation by the parent mode. The former is obtained from equation (4), and the latter from equations (6)-(7). We make a few simplifying assumptions to streamline the discussion. Resonances between daughters and granddaughters are taken as exact; individual members of daughter and granddaughter pairs are treated as equivalent. Equations (12) and (14) are combined to yield

$$\kappa ^2\frac{\gamma _p}{n_p^2L}.$$
(20)
It is then straightforward to show that

$$𝒮\frac{\omega _p\omega _d}{\omega _g^2}\left(\frac{n_d}{n_p}\right)^2\left(\frac{\gamma _g^2}{\gamma _d^2+\delta \omega ^2}\right)32\left(\frac{\gamma _g^2}{\gamma _d^2+\delta \omega ^2}\right).$$
(21)
The factor $`32`$ is an approximation based on taking $`\omega _g/\omega _d=\omega _d/\omega _p=1/2`$ and $`n_p/n_d=1/2`$.

In general $`𝒮1`$, so the excitation of granddaughter modes requires the daughter modes to have energies in excess of their equilibrium values. However, the equilibrium solution is unstable if the best daughter pair corresponds to $`\gamma _d>|\delta \omega |`$, and then the daughter mode energies episodically rise far above their equilibrium values. At such times, granddaughter modes may be excited by parametric instability and consequentially limit the amplitude growth of the daughter modes. This slows the transfer of energy from parent to daughter modes, but it does not prevent the daughter modes from saturating the growth of the parent mode’s amplitude at the level described by equation (4).

For the few lowest order parent modes, we typically find $`|\delta \omega |\gamma _d`$. This may reduce $`𝒮`$ to below unity with the consequence that the parent mode amplitude may rise above that given by equation (4).

### 5.3. Additional 3-Mode Interactions

Parametric instability sets reasonable upper bounds on the photospheric amplitudes of overstable modes. In a given star this upper bound rises with increasing mode period except possibly for the lowest few modes. However, the observed amplitude distributions are highly irregular. This mode selectivity may arise from 3-mode interactions which involve more than one overstable mode.

We investigate a particular example of this type. It is closely related to parametric instability, the only difference being that the daughter modes of the overstable parent mode are themselves overstable. Acting in isolation, resonant mode couplings tend to drive mode energies toward equipartition. They conserve the total energy, $`\dot{E}_p+\dot{E}_{d_1}+\dot{E}_{d_2}=0`$, and transfer action according to $`\dot{E}_{d_1}/\omega _{d_1}=\dot{E}_{d_2}/\omega _{d_2}=\dot{E}_p/\omega _p`$. In this context it is important to note that the energies of overstable modes limited by parametric instability decline with increasing mode period (Fig. 9). Therefore nonlinear interactions transfer energy from the parent mode to its independently excited daughters. As shown below, this transfer may severely suppress the parent mode’s amplitude.

We start from equations (1)-(3). These may be manipulated to yield

$$\frac{dE_p}{dt}=\gamma _pE_p+3\sqrt{2}\omega _p\kappa (E_pE_{d_1}E_{d_2})^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\theta _{d_1}+\theta _{d_2}\theta _p`$. For $`E_pE_{d_1}`$ and $`E_{d_2}`$, nonlinear interactions transfer energy from the parent mode to its daughter modes. In particular, if we ignore phase changes in the overstable daughter modes due to their interactions with granddaughter modes, we find that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dt}=\delta \omega \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\kappa (E_pE_{d_1}E_{d_2})^{1/2}\left[\left(\frac{\omega _{d_1}}{E_{d_1}}+\frac{\omega _{d_2}}{E_{d_2}}\right)\frac{\omega _p}{E_p}\right]\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(23)
with a stable solution at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi /2`$ when $`\delta \omega =0`$.

We denote the ratio of the nonlinear term to the linear term in equation (22) by the symbol $`𝒯`$;

$$𝒯\frac{3\sqrt{2}\omega _p\kappa }{\gamma _p}\left(\frac{E_{d_1}E_{d_2}}{E_p}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(24)
Using the magnitudes of $`E_i`$ set by parametric instability of their respective daughters, and adopting the same approximations made in §5.2, we arrive at

$$𝒯\frac{\omega _p\omega _d}{\omega _g^2}\left(\frac{n_d}{n_p}\right)^2\left(\frac{\gamma _g^2}{\gamma _d^2+\delta \omega ^2}\right)32\left(\frac{\gamma _g^2}{\gamma _d^2+\delta \omega ^2}\right).$$
(25)
Comparing equations (21) and (25) we see that $`𝒮=𝒯`$. A little thought reveals that this is not a coincidence. For $`𝒯1`$, overstable daughter modes can suppress a parent mode’s energy below the value set by parametric instability. We expect this suppression to be important in cool ZZ Ceti stars whose overstable modes extend to long periods. It may render their intermediate period modes invisible. In a similar manner, the amplitudes of high frequency overstable modes with $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and $`3`$ may be heavily suppressed by interactions with their lowest $`\mathrm{}`$ overstable daughters.

The irregular amplitude distributions among neighboring modes may be partially accounted for by this type of resonance. Mode variability may also play a role. We explore this in the next subsection.

### 5.4. Mode Variability

Excited g-modes in ZZ Ceti stars exhibit substantial temporal variations. Parametric instability may at least partially account for these variations.

When $`|\delta \omega |<\gamma _d`$, parametric instability gives rise to limit cycles in which the amplitudes and phases of parent and daughter modes vary on time scales as short as $`\gamma _d^1`$. Stable daughter modes may briefly attain visible amplitudes. Temporal amplitude variations may contribute to the irregular mode amplitude distribution seen in individual stars.

Phase variations of a parent mode obey the equation

$$\frac{d\theta _p}{dt}=\omega _p\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\omega _p\kappa \frac{|A_{d_1}||A_{d_2}|}{|A_p|}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(26)
At the equilibrium given by equations (5)-(8), the parent mode’s frequency is displaced from its unperturbed value such that

$$\omega _p^{}=\frac{d\theta _p}{dt}=\omega _p+\frac{\delta \omega \gamma _p}{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{2\delta \omega }{\gamma _{d_1}+\gamma _{d_2}\gamma _p}\right)^2}.$$
(27)
This constant frequency shift is of order $`10^9s^1`$ for the $`n=1`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$ mode and of order $`10^7s^1`$ for the $`n=2`$, $`\mathrm{}=2`$ mode. Frequency shifts in higher order overstable modes which are involved in limit cycles are predicted to be larger and time variable. During brief intervals of length $`\gamma _d^1`$, when the daughter mode energies are comparable to that of the parent mode, $`|\omega _p^{}\omega _p|\gamma _d`$, which is of order a few times $`10^5s^1`$, or a few $`\mu Hz`$ in angular frequency. These shifts might account for the time-varying rotational splittings reported by Kleinman et al. (kleinmanZZPsc (1998)) provided different $`m`$ components of the overstable modes are involved in different limit cycles.

### 5.5. Miscellany

We briefly comment on two relevant issues.

Gravitational settling produces chemically pure layers between which modes can be partially trapped. Modes that are trapped in the hydrogen layer have lower mode masses, and therefore higher growth rates and larger maximum values of $`|\kappa |`$ than untrapped modes of similar frequency. This implies lower threshold energies for parametric instability. Nevertheless, trapping does not affect predicted photospheric amplitudes of $`\delta p/p`$, and hence $`v_h`$ and $`\delta F/F`$, since these are proportional to $`A`$ divided by the square root of the mode mass.

In circumstances of small rotational splitting, the simple limit-cycles depicted in Figure 1 are unlikely to be realistic. In such cases, different $`m`$ components of an overstable parent mode share some common daughter modes. This leads to more complex dynamics.

We are indebted to Bradley for supplying us with models of DA white dwarfs. Financial support for this research was provided by NSF grant 94-14232.

## Appendix A Three-Mode Coupling Coefficient

We reproduce the expression for the three-mode coupling coefficient presented in equation (9) of §3.1 with one modification:

$$\kappa =d^3xp\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_12)}{6}(\mathbf{}𝝃)^3+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathbf{}𝝃)\xi _{;j}^i\xi _{;i}^j+\mathrm{Det}|\xi _{;j}^i|\right\},$$
(A1)
where

$$\mathrm{Det}|\xi _{;j}^i|=\frac{1}{6}(\mathbf{}𝝃)^3\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{}𝝃)\xi _{;j}^i\xi _{;i}^j+\frac{1}{3}\xi _{;j}^i\xi _{;k}^j\xi _{;i}^k.$$
(A2)
Because of strong cancellations among its largest terms, this form is not well-suited for numerical evaluation. We derive a new expression which does not suffer from this defect. Then we estimate the size of $`\kappa `$ and deduce its dependences upon the properties of the three-modes.

### A.1. Simplification

In spherical coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, the components of the displacement vector may be written as

$$𝝃=\xi ^i𝜺_i=[\xi _r(r),\frac{\xi _h(r)}{r}\frac{}{\theta },\frac{\xi _h(r)}{r}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{}{\varphi }]Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(A3)
where $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$ is a spherical harmonic function, and the $`𝜺_i`$ are covariant basis vectors.

The angular integrations in equation (A1) are done analytically. The following definitions and properties prove useful:

$`T`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta Y_aY_bY_c<Y_aY_bY_c>,`$ (A4a)
$`F_a`$ $``$ $`<Y_a_\alpha Y_b^\alpha Y_c>=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}},`$ (A4b)
$`G_a`$ $``$ $`<_\alpha _\beta Y_a^\alpha Y_b^\beta Y_c>\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^4(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{T}{4}},`$ (A4c)
$`S`$ $``$ $`<_\alpha (^\alpha Y_a_\beta Y_b^\beta Y_c)>=G_a+G_b+G_c`$ (A4d)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2F_a+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2F_b+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2F_c)=G_a+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2F_a,`$
$`V_a`$ $``$ $`<Y_a_\alpha ^\beta Y_b_\beta ^\alpha Y_c>=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2TF_aS,`$ (A4e)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2T`$ $`=`$ $`F_b+F_c,`$ (A4f)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2F_a`$ $`=`$ $`G_b+G_c.`$ (A4g)
Here, $`_\alpha `$ is the covariant derivative on a spherical surface; $`\alpha `$ can be either $`\theta `$ or $`\varphi `$. Each angular integration is proportional to $`T`$ which contains all $`m`$ dependences and is of order unity independent of the $`\mathrm{}`$ values of the participating modes. The paramter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$. Subscripts $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ denote different modes. The angular selection rules are simply, $`\mathrm{}_c[|\mathrm{}_a\mathrm{}_b|,\mathrm{}_a+\mathrm{}_b]`$, Mod$`[(\mathrm{}_c+\mathrm{}_b+\mathrm{}_c),2]=0`$ and $`m_a+m_b+m_c=0`$.

Angular integration of $`\mathrm{Det}|\xi _{;j}^i|`$ yields

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{Det}|\xi _{;j}^i|}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[T\xi _r^b\xi _r^c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2T\xi _r^b\xi _h^c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2TV_a)\xi _h^b\xi _h^c\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r^a}{dr}}`$ (A5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[S(\xi _r^b\xi _h^b)\xi _h^cF_b\xi _r^b(\xi _r^c\xi _h^c)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _h^a}{dr}}.`$
Symmetrizing this expression with respect to modes $`b`$ and $`c`$, employing equations (A4d)-(A4g), we get

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{Det}|\xi _{;j}^i|=\frac{S}{3r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\xi _h^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c\right)+\frac{(F_a+S)}{2r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2T}{2r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\xi _h^a\xi _r^b\xi _r^c\right)+\frac{T}{3r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\xi _r^a\xi _r^b\xi _r^c\right).$$
(A6)
For gravity-modes, $`|\xi _h||\xi _r|`$. Thus the four terms in this expression decrease in size from left to right.

In a similar manner we arrive at

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathbf{}𝝃)^3=T(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)(\mathbf{}𝝃^b)(\mathbf{}𝝃^c),$$
(A7)
and

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathbf{}𝝃)\xi _{;j}^i\xi _{;i}^j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_a}{r}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(\xi _h^b\xi _h^c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2F_a}{r}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _h^c}{dr}}+T(\mathbf{}𝝃^a){\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r^b}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r^c}{dr}}`$ (A8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V_a}{r^2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _h^b\xi _h^c{\displaystyle \frac{2T\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2}{r^2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b\xi _h^c+{\displaystyle \frac{2T}{r^2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b\xi _r^c.`$
The magnitudes of the terms in the above expression decrease from left to right except that terms 2-4 are of comparable size.

Having disposed of the angular dependences in $`\kappa `$, we turn to the radial integrations. The following relations prove helpful in this context:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathbf{}𝝃)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{r}}\xi _h{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\xi _r,`$ (A9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p(\mathbf{}𝝃)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\rho g}{r}}\xi _h\left(\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dr}}\right)\rho \xi _r,`$ (A10)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p(\mathbf{}𝝃)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho g\xi _rr\rho \omega ^2\xi _h.`$ (A11)
The first equation is the definition of divergence, and the second and third are the radial and horizontal components of the equation of motion written in terms of the Lagrangian displacement.

Curvature terms arise because the directions of the basis vectors depend upon position. For instance,

$$\xi _{;\theta }^r=(\xi _r\xi _h)\frac{Y_\mathrm{}m}{\theta },$$
(A12)
where $`\xi _h`$ appears due to curvature in the coordinate system. The largest terms in equations (A6) and (A8) are curvature terms. However, their radial integrals cancel leaving a much smaller net contribution. Direct numerical evaluation of equation (A1) leads to unreliable results, so it is important to carry out this cancellation analytically. Accordingly, we integrate each term by parts and apply equations (A4d) and (A9) to obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^R}𝑑r\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Sp}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(\xi _h^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{F_ar\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p}{2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(\xi _h^b\xi _h^c\right)\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^R}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{F_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p}{2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _h^b\xi _h^c+{\displaystyle _0^R}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{F_ar\rho }{2}}\left(\omega _a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dr}}\right)\xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c.`$ (A13)
This step leads to

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^R}dr[{\displaystyle \frac{Tr^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_12)p}{6}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)(\mathbf{}𝝃^b)(\mathbf{}𝝃^c){\displaystyle \frac{Tr^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p}{2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a){\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r^b}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r^c}{dr}}`$ (A14)
$`F_ar\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _h^c}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2TS)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p}{2}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _h^b\xi _h^c{\displaystyle \frac{(SF_a)\rho g}{2}}\xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c{\displaystyle \frac{F_ar\rho }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dr}}\xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2T\rho g\xi _h^a\xi _r^b\xi _r^c+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2T\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b\xi _h^cTp{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _r^a}{dr}}\xi _r^b\xi _r^cT\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b\xi _r^c+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a^2F_ar\rho }{2}}\xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c].`$
Next we systematically eliminate radial derivatives of the displacement vector from the expression for $`\kappa `$. We integrate by parts to dispose of $`d\xi _h/dr`$ and substitute for $`d\xi _r/dr`$ using equation (A9). With the aid of equations (A4d)-(A4f), and using equation (A11) to make the expression symmetric with respect to indexes $`b`$ and $`c`$, we arrive at our final working expression for $`\kappa `$,

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^R}dr\{{\displaystyle \frac{Tr^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+1)p}{6}}(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)(\mathbf{}𝝃^b)(\mathbf{}𝝃^c)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a^2G_ar\rho }{2}}\xi _h^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c`$ (A15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F_a\rho }{2}}\left(gr{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dr}}\right)\xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2Tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p}{2}}\xi _h^a(\mathbf{}𝝃^b)(\mathbf{}𝝃^c)T(3\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+1)p(\mathbf{}𝝃^a)\xi _r^b\xi _r^c`$
$`+2Tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_1p\xi _r^a(\mathbf{}𝝃^b)(\mathbf{}𝝃^c)+{\displaystyle \frac{2Tp}{r}}\xi _r^a\xi _r^b\xi _r^c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\omega _a^23\omega _b^23\omega _c^2\right)F_a(2\omega _b^2F_b+2\omega _c^2F_c)\right]r\rho \xi _r^a\xi _h^b\xi _h^c`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^2T(5\rho g+\rho r{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{r}})\rho (\omega _b^2F_b+\omega _c^2F_c)r]\xi _h^a\xi _r^b\xi _r^c\}`$
All permutations of the 3 modes are to be included when evaluating this expression. However, the largest contribution from each term comes when $`b`$ and $`c`$ are radially similar daughter modes. For high order gravity-modes, the first five terms are of comparable size and much larger than the remaining four. Numerical evaluation of $`\kappa `$ using equation (A15) does not suffer from the errors arising from large cancellations and numerical differentiation that plague attempts using equation (A1).

### A.2. Order-of-Magnitude

Here we estimate the maximum value that $`\kappa `$ can attain for parametric resonances involving a given parent mode. In so doing, we apply results derived in Papers I and II. These include: (1) the scaling relations

$$|\mathbf{}𝝃|\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{R}\xi _h\frac{\xi _r}{z_\omega }k_h\xi _h\frac{1}{(n\tau _\omega L)^{1/2}},$$
(A16)
in the evanescent region $`z<z_\omega `$, and

$$|\mathbf{}𝝃|\left(\frac{z_\omega }{z}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{R}\xi _h\frac{\xi _r}{z},$$
(A17)
in the propagating cavity $`z>z_\omega `$; (2) the fact that regions between consecutive radial nodes contribute equally to the following normalization integral

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{2}_0^R𝑑rr^2\rho \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\xi _h^2+\xi _r^2\right)=1.$$
(A18)
As $`\xi _r^2\xi _h^2`$ for g-modes, we have

$$\omega ^2R^2_0^z𝑑z\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\xi _h^2\frac{n^{}}{n}\frac{1}{n}_0^z𝑑zk_z\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{z}{z_\omega }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(A19)
Here $`n^{}`$ is the number of radial nodes above depth $`z`$ and $`n`$ the total number in the mode.

Equation (A15) yields maximal values for $`\kappa `$ when mode $`a`$ is taken to be the parent mode and modes $`b`$ and $`c`$ to be two radially similar daughter modes. Most of the contribution to the radial integral comes from the region above $`z_{\omega _a}`$: for parametric resonance, $`z_{\omega _a}`$ is much greater than $`z_{\omega _b}z_{\omega _c}`$; the decay and rapid oscillation of the parent mode’s eigenfunction renders insignificant contribution from greater depths. Thus we can take the integrals in equation (A15) to run from $`z=0`$ to $`z=z_{\omega _a}`$ and pull out the parent mode eigenfunctions since they are approximately constant for $`z<z_{\omega _a}`$. This procedure reduces each of the leading terms in $`\kappa `$ and thus their sum to

$$\kappa \left(\frac{z_{\omega _p}}{z_{\omega _d}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{n_d(n_p\tau _{\omega _p}L)^{1/2}}.$$
(A20)
But $`z_{\omega _p}/z_{\omega _d}\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^2n_d^2/n_p^2`$ which leads to

$$\kappa \frac{1}{(n_p^3\tau _{\omega _p}L)^{1/2}}.$$
(A21)
The above equation establishes that the maximum value of $`\kappa `$ rises steeply with increasing radial order of the parent mode and is independent of the radial orders and spherical degrees of the daughter modes.

## Appendix B STRONGLY NONADIABATIC DAUGHTER MODES

Strong nonadiabaticity occurs wherever

$$\frac{\omega \tau _{\mathrm{th}}}{(k_zz)^2}1.$$
(B1)
We refer to the depth above which this inequality applies as $`z_{\mathrm{na}}`$. To derive a simple analytic scaling relation for $`z_{\mathrm{na}}`$, we make use of the approximations $`k_z(zz_\omega )^{1/2}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{th}}/\tau _b(z/z_b)^{q+2}`$. Here $`z_b`$ and $`\tau _b`$ are the depth and thermal relaxation time at the bottom of the convection zone, and $`\rho z^q`$ with $`q3.5`$ provides a fit to the density structure in the upper portion of the radiative interior. It then follows that

$$\frac{z_{\mathrm{na}}}{z_b}\left(\frac{1}{\omega \tau _b}\frac{z_b}{z_\omega }\right)^{\frac{1}{(q+1)}},$$
(B2)
Moreover,

$$\left(k_zz\right)_{\mathrm{na}}\left[\frac{1}{(\omega \tau _b)}\left(\frac{z_b}{z_\omega }\right)^{q+2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}.$$
(B3)
By reducing the effective buoyancy, strong nonadiabaticity lowers the effective lid of a g-mode’s cavity to $`z_{\mathrm{na}}`$. Consequences of this fact are explored in the following subsections.

### B.1. Damping Rates of Strongly Nonadiabatic Modes

As shown in Paper II, the energy dissipation rate for a strongly nonadiabatic mode may be written as

$$\gamma \frac{\omega }{\pi n}\mathrm{ln}^1,$$
(B4)
where $``$ denotes the coefficient of amplitude reflection at the top of the mode’s cavity.

To derive an approximate relation for $``$, we note that the real and imaginary parts of $`k_z`$, $`k_{zr}`$ and $`k_{zi}`$, satisfy

$$\frac{|k_{zi}|}{|k_{zr}|}\frac{(k_{zr}z)^2}{\omega \tau _{\mathrm{th}}},$$
(B5)
provided $`|k_{zi}|/|k_{zr}|1`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{ln}^1_{z_{\mathrm{na}}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z|k_{zi}|.$$
(B6)
Evaluating this integral with the aid of equations (B2) and (B3), we obtain

$$\mathrm{ln}^1\left[\frac{1}{(\omega \tau _b)}\left(\frac{z_b}{z_\omega }\right)^{q+2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2(q+1)}}\frac{\mathrm{}^{(q+2)/(q+1)}}{\omega ^{(2q+5)/(2q+2)}}.$$
(B7)
Numerical results for $`\mathrm{ln}^1`$ plotted in the upper panel of Figure 10 confirm this relation.

Because the maximum value of $`\kappa `$ for parametric resonance is independent of the spherical degrees of the daughter modes, the dependence of $`\gamma `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`\omega `$ is of great significance. Equations (B4) and (B7), together with the relation $`n\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`\omega `$, establish that $`\gamma \mathrm{}^{1/(q+1)}`$. Since $`\gamma `$ increases with $`\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`\omega `$, the most important daughter pairs are those with the smallest $`\mathrm{}`$ values subject to the constraint $`\gamma _d>\delta \omega `$.

### B.2. Reduction of the Coupling Coefficient by Strong Nonadiabaticity

The maximum adiabatic coupling coefficient between a parent mode and a pair of daughter modes is $`\kappa _{\mathrm{max}}(n_p^3\tau _{\omega _p}L)^{1/2}`$ (eq. ). Its major contribution comes from the region above $`z_{\omega _p}`$. The factor $`(n_p\tau _{\omega _p}L)^{1/2}`$ is the surface value of the normalized eigenfunction for $`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)]^{1/2}\xi _p/R`$. The extra factor $`n_p^1`$ is the fraction of each daughter mode’s nodes that lie above $`z_{\omega _p}`$. The coupling coefficient is reduced compared to equation (12) for daughter modes that are strongly nonadiabatic in the region above $`z_{\omega _p}`$.

Equation (B1) indicates that nonadiabaticity increases with increasing $`\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`z`$ and $`\omega `$; $`k_z(zz_\omega )^{1/2}`$ and $`z_\omega \omega ^2R^2/g\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$, so $`k_z\mathrm{}`$. We define the angular degree of decoupling for a given parent mode, $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}`$, as the smallest spherical degree at which its daughter modes are strongly nonadiabatic all the way down to the top of the parent mode’s cavity; that is, $`z_{\mathrm{na}_\mathrm{d}}z_{\omega _p}`$ at $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}`$. Using equation (B2), we find

$$\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}\left[\left(\frac{\omega ^2R^2}{gz_b}\right)^{q+2}\frac{\omega \tau _b}{(\mathrm{}_p(\mathrm{}_p+1))^{q+1}}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(B8)
Numerical results displayed in the lower panel of Figure 10 are well-represented by this scaling relation. We find that $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}`$ is relatively independent of stellar effective temperature but decays steeply with mode period. By $`n_p=20`$, we find $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}1`$.

It is plausible that at $`\mathrm{}_d=\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}`$, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is reduced by a factor $`n_p/n_d`$ below its adiabatic value (eq. ) because the effective lids of the daughter modes’ cavities are lowered to $`z_{\omega _p}`$. Since $`n_p/n_d\mathrm{}_p/2\mathrm{}_d`$, this is a large reduction for $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}\mathrm{}_p`$. An even more severe reduction of $`\kappa _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is expected for $`\mathrm{}_d>\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{dc}}`$.

### B.3. Parametric Instability for Traveling Waves

In the limit of strong nonadiabaticity, daughter modes are more appropriately described as traveling waves than as standing waves. Thus it behooves us to investigate the parametric instability of traveling waves. Here we demonstrate that the instability criterion for traveling waves is equivalent to that for standing waves (eq. ).

Nonlinear interactions between parent and daughter modes are localized within an interaction region above $`z_{\omega _p}`$. Let us assume that $`z_{\mathrm{na}_\mathrm{d}}z_{\omega _p}`$. Then, in most of the interaction region daughter wave packets may be represented as linear superpositions of adiabatic modes. Propagating at their group velocity, the daughter wave packets pass through the interaction region in a time interval

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=_0^{z_{\omega _p}}\frac{dz}{v_{gz}}\frac{1}{n_p}\frac{\pi n_d}{\omega _d}.$$
(B9)
Three significant relations involving $`n_p`$ are worth noting: 1) $`n_p^1`$ is the fraction of each daughter mode’s nodes that lie above $`z_{\omega _p}`$, so $`2\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is a fraction $`n_p^1`$ of the time each daughter wave packet takes to make a round trip across its cavity; 2) approximately $`n_p`$ daughter modes reside within the frequency interval $`\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, and their relative phases change by less than $`\pi `$ as each daughter wave packet crosses the interaction region; 3) maximal $`\kappa `$ occurs inside an interval of width $`|n_{d_1}n_{d_2}|n_p`$.

Nonlinear interactions between parent and daughter waves within the interaction region are described by equations (1)-(3) with two modifications of the equations governing the time evolution of the daughter modes. The linear damping term is negligible for $`zz_{\mathrm{na}}`$, and the nonlinear term must be multiplied by a factor $`n_p`$. The latter accounts for the number of modes which couple coherently to each daughter mode during the interaction time $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. During two passes through the interaction region, the amplitudes of the daughter wave packets grow by a factor $`e^G`$, where the gain, $`𝒢`$, is given by

$$𝒢=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }T}{|A_d|}\frac{d|A_d|}{dt}3\sqrt{2}n_d|\kappa ||A_p|.$$
(B10)
For parametric instability to occur,

$$𝒢>\mathrm{ln}^1.$$
(B11)
Combining the relation between $``$ and $`\gamma `$ given by equation (B4) with equation (B11), the threshold condition for parametric instability of traveling waves becomes

$$|A_p|>\frac{\gamma _d}{3\sqrt{2}\omega _d|\kappa |}.$$
(B12)
The above condition is equivalent to equation (4) in the limit that $`\gamma _d\delta \omega `$. Thus the threshold condition for parametric instability of traveling waves reduces to a limiting case of the threshold condition for parametric instability of standing waves.