text:
# Compact singularities of meromorphic mappings between complex 3-dimensional manifolds

## Introduction

The study of the extendibility of holomorphic and meromorphic mappings began with the classical theorem of Hartogs \[Ha\] (see \[Si\]).

> Let $`K`$ be a compact subset of a domain $`M^n`$, $`n2`$, such that $`MK`$ is connected, and let $`f:MK`$ be a holomorphic function. Then there exists a holomorphic function $`\widehat{f}:M`$ extending $`f`$, i.e., $`\widehat{f}_{MK}=f`$.

Shortly after Hartogs proved his theorem, E. E. Levi \[Le\] discovered that this extension result holds true also for meromorphic functions.

A natural problem is to understand under what conditions Hartogs’ Theorem (respectively Levi’s Theorem) holds when the mapping $`f`$ takes values in a general complex manifold $`X`$ rather than $``$ (respectively $`^1`$). Of course it is immediate that Hartogs’ Theorem remains valid for holomorphic mappings with values in a Stein manifold $`X`$, since such a manifold $`X`$ can be embedded into $`^N`$. It similarly follows that Levi’s Theorem also remains valid for meromorphic mappings with values in compact projective manifolds.

In 1971, Griffiths \[Gr\] and the second author \[Sh\] independently showed that Hartogs’ Theorem is valid for holomorphic mappings into manifolds $`X`$ carrying a complete Hermitian metric with non-positive holomorphic scalar curvature, answering a question was asked by Chern in \[Che\]. Concerning the meromorphic mapping problem, the first author \[Iv1\] proved that Hartogs extension holds for meromorphic maps into compact Kähler manifolds.

We recall two more results here due to K. Stein and M. Chazal. Stein proved in \[St\] that Hartogs’ Theorem holds for holomorphic maps if $`dimXn2`$. Recently Chazal \[Cha\] relaxed this condition to $`dimXn1`$ and more generally $`f`$ can be meromorphic. The next case of interest is the equidimensional case $`dimX=n`$. It is well known that one doesn’t always have meromorphic extension in this case, as is illustrated by the (holomorphic) projection $`f:^nX=^n/`$ to the Hopf manifold. (The $``$-action is given by $`z\stackrel{n}{}2^nz`$.) The goal of this paper is to show that, at least for dimension $`3`$, the singularity at 0 of the Hopf map $`f`$ is the only type of singularity that can occur for equidimensional meromorphic maps:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`K`$ be a compact set with connected complement in a Stein manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`3`$, let $`X`$ be a compact complex manifold of the same dimension and let $`f:MKX`$ be a meromorphic map. Then there exists a finite set $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}K`$ such that $`f`$ has a meromorphic extension $`\widehat{f}:M\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}X`$, and if $`B(a_j)`$ are disjoint coordinate balls centered at $`a_j`$, then $`\widehat{f}(B(a_j))`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$ ($`1jd`$).

The same result when both $`M`$ and $`X`$ have dimension two was proved by the first author in \[Iv3, Corollary 4(b)\]. It is open whether this result if valid for equidimensional maps of dimension greater than 3. Of course, one cannot expect to obtain such results when the dimension of $`X`$ is greater then the dimension of $`M`$; see the remark in §1 below.

In the case of the Hopf map $`f:^3\{0\}^3/`$ mentioned above, $`A=\{0\}`$. Of course, the elements $`\widehat{f}(B(a_j))`$ of the fifth homology group are very special; they are often called spherical shells. If, for example, $`\widehat{f}`$ is a holomorphic embedding in a neighborhood of $`B(a_j)`$, then $`X`$ is of a very restricted type: it is a deformation of the Hopf 3-fold (see \[Ka1\]).

In particular, if the singular set $`A`$ is nonempty, then $`H^5(X,)0`$. Poincaré duality then implies the following:

###### Corollary 2.

If under the conditions of Theorem 1, $`H^1(X,)=0`$, then $`f`$ extends meromorphically to all of $`M`$.

## 1. Reductions

For degenerate mappings, the result is known and is due to F. Chazal \[Cha\]. Hence, in the sequel, we always suppose that $`f`$ is nondegenerate; i.e., $`\mathrm{rank}f=3`$.

We let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)=\{z:|z|<r\}`$ denote the disk or radius $`r`$ about $`0`$, and we write $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$. We consider the polydisk $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n(r)=\mathrm{\Delta }(r)^n`$ and “annulus” $`A^n(r,1)=\mathrm{\Delta }^n\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }^n(r)}`$. We shall make frequent use of the following Hartogs figure in $`^3`$:

$$H_1^2(r)=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(1r)\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)\right].$$

By the standard method of extending analytic objects (see for example \[Si\]), it suffices to prove either of the following two equivalent results:

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex $`3`$-fold and let $`f:H_1^2(r)X`$ be a nondegenerate meromorphic map. Then there is a discrete set $`\{a_j\}\mathrm{\Delta }^3H_1^2(r)`$ and a meromorphic extension $`\widehat{f}:\mathrm{\Delta }^3\{a_j\}X`$ such that if $`B(a_j)`$ are disjoint balls in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ centered at $`a_j`$, then $`\widehat{f}(B(a_j))`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`M,W`$ be open sets in $`^3`$, and suppose $`pMW`$ such that $`W`$ is smooth and strictly pseudoconvex at $`p`$. Let $`U=M\overline{W}`$. Suppose $`f:UX`$ is a nondegenerate meromorphic map to a compact $`3`$-fold $`X`$. Then there is an open set $`\stackrel{~}{U}U\{p\}`$ such that $`f`$ has a meromorphic extension $`\widehat{f}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{U}\{p\}`$, and either $`\widehat{f}`$ is meromorphic at $`p`$ or $`\widehat{f}(B(p))`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$, where $`B(p)`$ is a ball about $`p`$ contained in $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$.

We note that Proposition 4 follows from Proposition 3 with the additional simplifying assumption that $`f`$ is holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)`$. To see this, we observe that the set of points of indeterminacy $`I_f`$ of our meromorphic map $`f`$ has codimension at least two, i.e., is a curve together with a discrete set of points. Let $`M,W,p`$ be as in Proposition 4 and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_1}^2=\{p_1\}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ denote the vertical bidisk passing through $`p=(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$. We can assume, after making a quadratic change of coordinates, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_1}^2I_f`$ contains no curves and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_1}^2\overline{W}=\{p\}`$. After translating and stretching coordinates, we then obtain a Hartogs figure $`H_1^2(r)`$ contained in $`U`$, with $`p`$ in the corresponding polydisk $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, such that $`[\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)]I_f=\mathrm{}`$, so we can apply the modified Proposition 3 to obtain the conclusion of Proposition 4 with $`\stackrel{~}{U}=\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$.

Proposition 3 follows from Proposition 4, since the Hartogs figure can be exhausted by a family of strictly pseudoconcave hypersurfaces and this family can be continued to exhaust $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$. Thus, when proving Proposition 3, we may assume that $`f`$ is holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)`$.

Remark: The reader may observe that these results involves extension from a “$`1`$-concave” 3-dimensional domain. It is worthwhile to note that in general there is no extension of meromorphic maps with values in compact 3-dimensional manifolds from $`2`$-concave domains, such as the classical Hartogs figure

$$H_2^1(r):=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2(1r)\times \mathrm{\Delta }\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2\times A^1(r)\right].$$

Namely, M. Kato constructed in \[Ka2\] an example of a compact complex three-fold $`X`$ and a holomorphic mapping $`f:^2\overline{B}X`$ defined on the complement of a ball $`B^2`$, such that every point of the sphere $`B`$ is an essential singular point of $`f`$.

We shall prove Proposition 3 in §2 after we make the following reductions:

1. First of all, as was already explained, we can assume that $`f:H_1^2(r)X`$ is nondegenerate and holomorphic on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)`$.
2. We can further assume that there is no hypersurface in $`H_1^2(r)`$ which $`f`$ sends to a point. If such a hypersurface exists, then by shrinking $`H_1^2(r)`$ a little bit, we can suppose that there are finitely many of them. Then by blowing up the image points sufficiently many times, we obtain a modification $`\widehat{X}`$ of $`X`$ together with a lift $`\widehat{f}`$ of $`f`$ to a meromorphic map $`\widehat{f}:U\widehat{X}`$ having the desired property. After extending $`\widehat{f}`$, we can push it down to extend $`f`$ itself.
3. We write

$$A_s^2=\{s\}\times A^2(r,1),s\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

After again shrinking $`H_1^2(r)`$ a little, we can suppose that $`A_s^2`$ contains no curves contracted by $`f`$ to a point, for all $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Indeed, since $`\mathrm{rank}f=3`$, there are at most 1-parameter families of contracted curves. We consider small quadratic changes of the $`z_1`$ coordinate: $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1=z_1+Q(z_2,z_3)`$, where $`Q`$ is a polynomial of degree 2 with small coefficients. The set of such Q such that $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1`$ is constant on a fixed holomorphic curve is of codimension at least 2. Whence, for an open dense set of such $`Q`$, the coordinate function $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1`$ is nonconstant on each contracted curve; i.e., for all $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1^1(s)`$ contains no contracted curves.
4. By the above argument, we can also assume that none of the $`A_s^2`$ are contained in the critical set $`C_f`$ of $`f`$.
5. By the argument below, we can also assume that for all $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, there do not exist nonempty disjoint open subsets $`V_1,V_2`$ of $`A_s^2`$ with $`f(V_1)=f(V_2)`$.

To show that we can realize property (e) after a change of coordinates, we let

$$U=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)\right](I_fC_f)$$

and we consider the set

$$D=\{(z,w)U\times U:zw,f(z)=f(w)\},$$

which is an analytic subvariety of $`U\times U`$ minus the diagonal. Note that $`D`$ is locally given as the graph of a biholomorphic map (and thus is a smooth 3-dimensional submanifold). It suffices to show that we can make a small perturbation of coordinates so that

$$dimD(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2\times \mathrm{\Delta }_s^2)1$$
(1)
for all $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

To show (1), we let $`𝒫_n^l`$ denote the vector space of polynomials of degree $`l`$ on $`^n`$. Note that

$$dim𝒫_n^l=(\begin{array}{c}l+n\\ n\end{array}).$$
(2)
We also let $`𝒥_a^l(g)𝒫_n^l`$ denote the $`l`$-jet of a germ $`g{}_{n}{}^{}𝒪_{a}^{}`$ ($`a^n`$). We shall use the following lemma:

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`\phi :\mathrm{\Delta }^m^n`$ be a holomorphic map such that $`\phi (0)=a`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}_0\phi =m`$. Then

$$\mathrm{codim}_{𝒫_n^l}\{f𝒫_n^l:𝒥_0^l(f\phi )=0\}=(\begin{array}{c}l+m\\ m\end{array}).$$

###### Proof.

By a change of coordinates, we can assume without loss of generality that $`\phi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. The result then follows immediately from (1).∎

We let $`𝒬^l`$ denote the set of polynomials $`g`$ in $`𝒫_3^l`$ such that $`dg`$ does not vanish on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3(2)`$. (Note that small polynomial perturbations of the coordinate function $`z_1`$ are in $`𝒬^l`$.) Let $`a=(z_0,w_0)D\mathrm{\Delta }^6(2)`$ be arbitrary, and let $`_a`$ denote the set of polynomials $`g`$ in $`𝒬^5`$ with

$$dim_a\{(z,w)D:g(z)=g(z_0),g(w)=g(w_0)\}>1.$$

We shall show that

$$\mathrm{codim}_{𝒬^5}_a6.$$
(3)
Since $`dimD=3`$, (3) implies that we can choose $`g𝒫_3^5`$ such that $`g`$ is a small deformation of the coordinate function $`z_1`$ and

$$dimD\left(g^1(s)\times g^1(t)\right)1\text{for all }s,t\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

If we then replace $`z_1`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1=g`$, (1) will be satisfied.

To verify (3), we first consider an arbitrary quadratic polynomial $`g_1𝒬^2`$, and we let

$$E=\{(z,w)D:g_1(z)=g_1(z_0)\}.$$

Since $`D`$ is locally given as a graph and $`dg_1(z_0)0`$, $`E`$ is smooth at $`z_0`$. Now let $`\phi =(\phi _1,\phi _2):\mathrm{\Delta }^2E`$ with $`\phi (0)=a`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}_0\phi =2`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{rank}_0\phi _1=\mathrm{rank}_0\phi _2=2`$. Let $`^{}(g_1)`$ denote the set of $`g_2𝒬^2`$ such that $`𝒥_0^2(g_2\phi _2)=0`$. By Lemma 5, $`\mathrm{codim}^{}(g_1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{4}{2}\right)=6`$. Furthermore, we note that if we replace $`g_1`$ with a germ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_1{}_{3}{}^{}𝒪_{z_0}^{}`$ with the same 2-jet at $`z_0`$, then we can choose $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2`$ with the same 2-jet (at 0) as $`\phi _2`$ so that $`(\phi _1,\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2):\mathrm{\Delta }^2E`$ has the same 2-jet (at 0) as $`\phi `$. Thus if $`g_2𝒬^2^{}(g_1)`$, we have $`𝒥_0^2(g_2\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2)=𝒥_0^2(g_2\phi _2)0`$. Furthermore, if we also replace this $`g_2`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2{}_{3}{}^{}𝒪_{w_0}^{}`$ with the same 2-jet at $`w_0`$, then $`𝒥_0^2(\stackrel{~}{g}_2\stackrel{~}{\phi }_2)0`$, and hence

$$dim_a\{(z,w)D:\stackrel{~}{g}_1(z)=g_1(z_0),\stackrel{~}{g}_2(w)=g_2(w_0)\}=1.$$

Now consider the linear map

$$\tau _a:𝒫_3^5𝒫_3^2\times 𝒫_3^2,g(𝒥_{z_0}^2(g),𝒥_{w_0}^2(g)).$$

By the above discussion, $`_a\tau _a^1(_a^{})`$, where

$$_a^{}=\{(g_1,g_2):g_1𝒬^2,g_2^{}(g_1)\}.$$

Since $`\tau `$ is surjective, it follows that

$$\mathrm{codim}_{𝒬^5}_a\mathrm{codim}_{𝒬^2\times 𝒬^2}_a^{}6.$$

This completes the verification of (1), and hence conditions (a)–(e) above can be satisfied.

## 2. Proof of Proposition 3

We are now prepared to prove the Hartogs extension property. By our construction above, we may assume that the map $`f:H_1^2(r)X`$ of Proposition 3 possesses the following properties:

1. $`f`$ is non-degenerate and holomorphic on a neighborhood of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)}`$;
2. for all $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the set $`A_s^2`$ contains no curves contracted by $`f`$ to a point;
3. for all $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, there do not exist nonempty disjoint open subsets $`V_1,V_2`$ of $`A_s^2`$ with $`f(V_1)=f(V_2)`$;

We must show that $`f`$ extends meromorphically to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ minus a discrete set of points. Denote by $`W`$ some open subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`f`$ can be meromorphically extended onto the Hartogs domain

$$H_W(r):=\left[W\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\times A^2(r,1)\right].$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a strictly positive $`(2,2)`$-form on $`X`$ with $`dd^c\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Existence of such a form on the compact 3-dimensional manifold $`X`$ follows from the absence of nonconstant plurisubharmonic functions on $`X`$ via duality and the Hahn-Banach theorem. In fact even more is true. Every Hermitian metric on $`X`$ is conformally equivalent to a metric whose associated $`(1,1)`$-form $`\omega `$ is $`dd^c`$-closed, see \[Ga\]. In the sequel, we shall take $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega ^2`$, where $`\omega `$ is such a Gauduchon form. Denote by $`T`$ the pull-back of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`f`$, i.e. $`T=f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. More accurately, $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined in the case of meromorphic $`f`$ as follows. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f`$ denote the desingularization of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_fH_W(r)\times X`$ of $`f`$ and let $`\pi _1:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_fH_W(r)`$ and $`\pi _2:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_fX`$ be the natural projections. Note that $`\pi _1`$ is proper by the very definition of meromorphic map. Define

$$f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }:=\pi _1\pi _2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(4)
The current $`T=f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a positive bidegree $`(2,2)`$ current on $`H_W(r)`$. Being the push-forward of a smooth form (on a desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$), $`T`$ has coefficients in $`_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(H_W(r))`$.

To see that the push-forward of a smooth form $`\eta `$ by a modification $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ has coefficients in $`_{\mathrm{loc}}^1`$, it suffices to show that $`\pi _{}\eta `$ has no mass on the center $`C`$ of $`\pi `$. (In our case $`C=I_f`$.) But for any test form $`\phi `$ on $`M`$ and any sequence $`\rho _n\chi _C`$ with $`0\rho _n1`$, we have $`(\pi _{}\eta ,\rho _n\phi )=_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\eta \pi ^{}(\rho _n\phi )0`$. Hence $`\pi _{}\eta (E)=0`$. (In fact, this holds when $`\pi `$ is any surjective holomorphic map that is proper on $`\mathrm{Supp}\eta `$.)

It follows immediately from (4) that $`dd^cT=0`$. Moreover, $`T`$ is smooth on $`H_W(r)I_f`$, since outside the set $`I_f`$ of indeterminacy points of $`f`$, it is the usual pull-back of the smooth form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We write $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2:=\{s\}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, for $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The function

$$\mu (s):=_{\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2}f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

is well defined for all $`sW`$, since by the above, $`(f^{}\mathrm{\Omega })|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2}=(f_{\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2})_{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a positive, bidegree $`(2,2)`$-current on a neighborhood of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2}`$ and is in $`_{\mathrm{loc}}^1`$. We remark that $`\mu (s)`$ is nothing but the volume of $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2)`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ counted with multiplicities.

###### Lemma 6.

The function $`\mu `$ is positive and smooth on $`W`$, and its Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ smoothly extends onto the whole unit disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Proof.

(We follow the method of proof of \[Iv2, Lemma 3.1\].) The positivity of $`\mu `$ follows from the positivity of $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and property (ii) above. To show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ extends to the unit disk, we begin by writing

$$T=\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}t_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}dz^\stackrel{\alpha }{}d\overline{z}^\stackrel{\beta }{},$$

where $`dz^\stackrel{1}{}=dz_2dz_3,dz^\stackrel{2}{}=dz_1dz_3,dz^\stackrel{3}{}=dz_1dz_2`$. The function $`\mu `$ is then given by

$$\mu (z_1)=_{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}t_{1\overline{1}}(z_1,z_2,z_3)𝑑z_2d\overline{z}_2dz_3d\overline{z}_3.$$

Let

$$T^\epsilon =\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}t_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}^\epsilon dz^\stackrel{\alpha }{}d\overline{z}^\stackrel{\beta }{}$$

be the smoothing of $`T`$ by convolution; the $`T^\epsilon `$ are smooth forms converging to $`T`$ in $`^1`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. On $`H_W(r)I_f`$ the convergence is in the $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ topology. The functions

$$\mu ^\epsilon (z_1):=_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}T^\epsilon =_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}t_{1\overline{1}}^\epsilon (z_1,z_2,z_3)𝑑z_2d\overline{z}_2dz_3d\overline{z}_3$$

are smooth in $`W`$.

The condition $`dd^cT=0`$ reads as

$$\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\frac{^2t_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}}{z_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta }=0.$$

So,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^\epsilon (z_1)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2t_{1\overline{1}}^\epsilon }{z_1\overline{z}_1}}𝑑z_2dz_3d\overline{z}_2d\overline{z}_3`$
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )(1,1)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2t_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}^\epsilon }{z_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta }}dz_2d\overline{z}_2dz_3d\overline{z}_3`$
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{3}{}}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{t_{\alpha \overline{1}}^\epsilon }{\overline{z}_1}}dz_{5\alpha }d\overline{z}_2d\overline{z}_3+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =2}{\overset{3}{}}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{t_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}^\epsilon }{z_\alpha }}dz_2dz_3d\overline{z}_{5\beta }\right].`$
Since $`f`$ is holomorphic on a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, the current $`T`$ is smooth on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^\epsilon `$ converges smoothly to the function $`\psi `$ given by

$$\psi (z_1)=4_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}\left[\underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{3}{}}\pm \frac{t_{\alpha \overline{1}}}{\overline{z}_1}dz_{5\alpha }d\overline{z}_2d\overline{z}_3+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{\beta =2}{\overset{3}{}}\pm \frac{t_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}}{z_\alpha }dz_2dz_3d\overline{z}_{5\beta }\right].$$
(5)
But (5) defines a smooth function on all of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. While $`\mu ^\epsilon \mu `$ in $`^1`$ on $`W`$, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ on $`W`$. This shows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\psi `$ is smooth and smoothly extends onto the disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus $`\mu `$ is also smooth on $`W`$. ∎

###### Lemma 7.

Suppose that $`f`$ is non-degenerate and that there exists a sequence $`\{s_n\}W`$ converging to $`s_0\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`\mu (s_n)`$ is bounded. Then:

1) $`f_0:=f|A_{s_0}^2`$ meromorphically extends onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2`$;

2) the volumes of the graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_{s_n}}`$ are uniformly bounded in $`n`$;

3) $`f`$ meromorphically extends onto $`U_0\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ for some neighborhood $`U_0`$ of $`s_0`$.

###### Proof.

1) We let $`f_n=f|\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_n}^2`$ and we write $`F_n=f_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_n}^2)`$. We further write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=f_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_n}^2),`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=f_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2)`$. Since the volumes $`\mu (s_n)`$ of the $`F_n`$ are uniformly bounded, by Bishop’s theorem (see for example \[HS\]) we can assume, after passing to a subsequence, that $`F_n`$ converges to a pure 2-dimensional analytic subset $`F`$ of $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Note that $`\overline{F}=F\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$.

Case 1. $`\overline{F}`$ is a subvariety of $`X`$.

In this case

$$f_0|_{A_{s_0}^2}:A_{s_0}^2F^0$$

is a holomorphic map into an irreducible component $`F^0`$ of $`\overline{F}`$. If $`\widehat{F}^0`$ denotes a desingularization of $`F^0`$, then $`f_0`$ lifts to a meromorphic map $`\widehat{f}_0`$ from $`A_{s_0}^2`$ to $`\widehat{F}^0`$. By the 2-dimensional version of Theorem 1 proved in \[Iv3, Cor. 4(b)\], $`\widehat{f}_0`$ extends meromorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2`$ minus a finite set of points. If this set is nonempty, then $`\widehat{f}_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2)`$ would not be homologous to zero in $`\widehat{F}^0`$, and hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=f_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2)`$ would not be homologous to zero in $`F^0`$. But $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=lim\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=limF_n=limF_n`$ in the sense of currents. Since $`\mathrm{Supp}limF_n\overline{F}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is homologous to zero in $`\overline{F}`$ and therefore in $`F^0`$, a contradiction. So $`f_0`$ extends onto all of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2`$.

Case 2. $`\overline{F}`$ is not a subvariety of $`X`$.

Let $`F^0`$ be the irreducible component of $`F`$ containing $`f_0(A_{s_0}^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Define the analytic space $`E=F_0A_{s_0}^2/`$, where the equivalence relation is defined as follows: The points $`aF^0`$ and $`bA_{s_0}^2`$ are equivalent iff $`a=f_0(b)`$, and necessarily $`b^{}A_{s_0}^2`$ is equivalent to $`b`$ iff $`f_0(b)=f_0(b^{})`$. By property (ii) above, this is a proper equivalence relation and hence $`E`$ is a complex space. Let $`\pi :E\overline{F}^0X`$ be the projection defined by $`\pi (a)=a`$ for $`aF^0`$ and $`\pi (b)=f_0(b)`$ for $`bA_{s_0}^2`$. Let $`\widehat{E}\stackrel{\eta }{}E`$ denote the normalization. By property (iii), the map $`f_0:A_{s_0}^2E`$ is generically one-to-one and thus is a normalization of its image. By the uniqueness of the normalization, $`f_0`$ lifts to a map $`\widehat{f}_0:A_{s_0}^2\widehat{E}`$, i.e., $`\eta \widehat{f}_0=f_0`$. The map $`\widehat{f}_0`$ is a biholomorphism onto its image.

The boundary $`\widehat{E}`$, being biholomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, is strictly pseudoconvex after shrinking slightly, so by Grauert’s theorem, $`\widehat{E}`$ can be blown down to a normal Stein space. This easily yields an extension of $`f_0`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2`$.

2) We denote the extension of $`f_0`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_0}^2`$ also by $`f_0`$. Let $`F^{}`$ be the maximal compact pure 2-dimensional variety contained in $`\overline{F}`$. (In Case 1 above, $`F^{}=\overline{F}`$, whereas in Case 2, $`F^{}=\overline{FF^0}`$.) We consider the pure two-dimensional analytic set

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}(I_{f_0}\times F^{}).$$

in $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2)\times X`$, where $`I_{f_0}`$ is the (finite) set of points of indeterminacy of $`f_0`$.

Step 1. We claim that for all $`\epsilon >0`$ the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n}`$ belongs to the $`\epsilon `$-neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for $`n0`$.

Neighborhoods are taken with respect to the Euclidean metric on $`^3`$ and Gauduchon metric on $`X`$. (In fact, any choice of metric works as well as this one.) This claim follows immediately from Lemma 8 below.

We say that a sequence of meromorphic maps $`f_n:UX`$ converges to a holomorphic map $`f_0`$ on a domain $`U`$ if for all compact subsets $`KU`$, $`I_{f_n}K=\mathrm{}`$ for $`n0`$ and $`f_nf_0`$ uniformly on $`K`$.

###### Lemma 8.

Let $`f_n:\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2X`$ be a sequence of meromorphic maps, where $`X`$ is a compact complex manifold. Suppose that $`f_n`$ is holomorphic on $`A`$, where $`A=A^2(r,1)`$. If there exists a meromorphic map $`f_0:\mathrm{\Delta }^2X`$ such that $`f_n|_Af_0|_A`$, then $`f_nf_0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2I_{f_0}`$.

Lemma 8 is a special case of Proposition 1.1.1 in \[Iv4\]. (Proposition 1.1.1 in \[Iv4\] is stated in terms of “strong convergence” of meromorphic maps. However, if $`\{f_n\}`$ strongly converges to a holomorphic map, then the sequence converges in the above sense. This is the content of the “Rouché principle” of \[Iv4, Theorem 1\].)

To complete the proof of (2), we consider a point $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and take any open $`Wp`$ adapted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. biholomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\times \mathrm{\Delta }^4=U\times B`$ in such a way that $`(\overline{U}\times B)\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$. Then for $`n1`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n}(\overline{U}\times B)=\mathrm{}`$ and thus $`p_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n}}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n}(U\times B)U`$ is a $`d_n`$-sheeted analytic covering, where $`p:U\times BU`$ is a natural projection.

Step 2. The number $`\{d_n\}`$ of sheets is uniformly bounded.

Consider the following two cases. Case 1. $`p(I_{f_0}\times F^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}.`$ In this case as $`Wp`$ we can take the following neighborhood. Let $`p=(a,b)`$, where $`aI_{f_0}^3`$ and $`bF^{}X`$. Take a neighborhood of $`b`$ in $`X`$ of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`F^{}(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\times \mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{}`$. Then take some small $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3a`$ in $`^3`$ and put $`U=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`B=\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^3`$. If the number $`d_n`$ of sheets of the analytic cover $`\pi _U:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n}(U\times B)U`$ is not bounded, it will contradict the fact that $`f_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_n}^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\times \mathrm{\Delta })=F_n(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\times \mathrm{\Delta })`$ has uniformly bounded volume (counted with multiplicities).

One should remark now that boundedness of the number of sheets does not depend on the particular choice of the adapted neighborhood of $`p`$.

Case 2. $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}`$. Let $`W=U\times Bp`$ be some adapted neighborhood. Find a point $`qU`$ such that all its pre-images $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_N\}=\pi _U^1(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are smooth points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\pi _U`$ is a biholomorphism between neighborhoods $`V_jq_j`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`V`$ on $`U`$. Denote by $`b_j`$ the projection of $`q_j`$ into $`B`$. Take mutually disjoint polydisks $`B_jB`$ with centers $`b_j`$. Consider $`W_j:=V_j\times B_j`$ as adapted neighborhoods of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`q_j`$. They are adapted also for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n},n>>0.`$ Denote by $`d_n^j`$ the corresponding number of sheets. If $`d_n`$ is not bounded then at least one sequence $`d_n^j`$ is also unbounded. Fix $`j`$ with $`d_j^n`$ unbounded.

If $`q_j(I_{f_0}\times F^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}`$, then everything reduces to Case 1. So let $`q_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}`$. Perturbing $`q`$ and thus $`q_j`$ if necessary, we can suppose that $`q_j`$ is a point where our map $`f`$ is holomorphic. More precisely $`q_j=(a,f(a))`$ for some $`a\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2^3`$. Now the contradiction is immediate, because the graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_n}`$ uniformly approach $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0}`$ while $`f_n`$ converges to $`f`$ in a neighborhood of $`a`$.

3) We are exactly under the assumptions of Proposition 1.3 of \[Iv3\], i.e., we can apply the “Continuity Principle.” (The condition of boundedness of the cycle geometry is insured by Proposition 1.4 from \[Iv3\].) This gives us an extension of $`f`$ onto $`U_{s_0}\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. ∎

Let us proceed further with the proof of the theorem. Let $`W`$ be the maximal open subset of the disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`f`$ meromorphically extends onto $`H_W(r)`$.

###### Lemma 9.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ is a closed complete polar set in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The proof is the same as that of Lemma 2.4 from \[Iv3\] and will be omitted.

It suffices to show that there exists $`\widehat{f}:\mathrm{\Delta }^3(1\delta )X`$ satisfying the conclusion of Proposition 3 for arbitrary $`\delta >0`$. We now repeat the above arguments using two slightly deformed coordinate systems $`(z_1^{},z_2,z_3)`$ and $`(z_1^{\prime \prime },z_2,z_3)`$, where

$$z_1^{}=z_1+\epsilon z_2+O(|z|^2),z_1^{\prime \prime }=z_1+\epsilon z_3+O(|z|^2).$$

Here the $`O(|z|^2)`$ terms are chosen so that conditions (i)–(iii) at the beginning of this section are satisfied for each of the two coordinate systems, after shrinking $`r`$ if necessary. (As was shown in §1, these terms can be taken to be polynomials consisting of terms of degrees 2 through 5.) We choose $`\epsilon `$ and the $`O(|z|^2)`$ terms to be small enough so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3(1\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }^3,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3(1\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }^3`$ are the polydisks of radius $`1\frac{\delta }{2}`$ in the new coordinates.

Applying the above argument to the new coordinate systems, we obtain maximal open $`W^{},W^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{}:=\mathrm{\Delta }(1\frac{\delta }{2})`$ such that $`f`$ extends meromorphically to the Hartogs domains $`H_W^{}^{}(r),H_{W^{\prime \prime }}^{\prime \prime }(r)`$. We let $`S_1=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{}W,S_2=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{}W^{},S_3=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{}W^{\prime \prime }`$. Now consider the coordinates

$$w_1=z_1,w_2=z_1^{},w_3=z_1^{\prime \prime }$$

and let $`U`$ denote the image of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3(1\delta )`$ under the coordinate map $`(w_1,w_2,w_3)`$ . (We may assume that $`z_1^{},z_1^{\prime \prime }`$ are chosen so that the $`w_j`$ indeed provide coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$.)

In terms of the $`w`$-coordinates, $`f`$ then extends to a meromorphic map $`\widehat{f}`$ on $`U(S_1\times S_2\times S_3)`$. Now let $`s_0`$ be an arbitrary point in $`S:=S_1\times S_2\times S_3`$. We must show that $`s_0`$ is an isolated point of $`S`$ and that $`\widehat{f}(B_{s_0}(r))`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$, for any ball $`B_{s_0}(r)`$ centered at $`s_0`$ such that $`B_{s_0}(r)S=\{s_0\}`$.

Since polar sets in $``$ are of Hausdorff dimension zero, we can choose a polydisk $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3`$ about $`s_0`$ such that the set $`K:=S\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3`$ is compact. An identical proof to that of Lemma 3.3 from \[Iv2\] now shows that the current $`T=f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has locally summable coefficients on all of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3`$. Hence $`T`$ extends to a unique current $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3`$ with $`_{\mathrm{loc}}^1`$ coefficients. The following lemma then tells us that $`dd^c\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is of order 0:

###### Lemma 10.

\[Iv2, Proposition 2.3\] Let $`K`$ be a complete pluripolar, compact set in a strictly pseudoconvex domain $`D^n`$ and $`T`$ a positive, bidimension $`(1,1)`$ current in $`DK`$. Suppose that:

1) $`dd^cT0`$ in $`DK`$,

2) $`T`$ has locally finite mass in a neighborhood of $`K`$,

3) $`dT`$ and $`d^cT`$ have measure coefficients on $`DK`$.

Then the current $`dd^c\stackrel{~}{T}`$ has measure coefficients in $`D`$.

(Condition (3) on $`dT`$ and $`d^cT`$ was omitted in \[Iv2\], but is used in the proof. In our case $`T=\pi _1\pi _2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, so this condition follows from the fact that $`dT=\pi _1\pi _2^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the push-forward of a smooth form by a proper map, and similarly for $`d^cT`$.)

Since $`dd^cT=0`$, the support of the current $`dd^c\stackrel{~}{T}`$ must be contained in $`K`$. We also conclude from the Lemma 2.6 in \[Iv3\] that $`dd^c\stackrel{~}{T}0`$. Thus we can write $`dd^c\stackrel{~}{T}=\nu \omega _e^3`$, where $`\omega _e`$ is the Euclidean Kähler form on $`^3`$. Then for any ball $`B_{s_0}(r)\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3`$ about $`s_0`$ with $`B_{s_0}(r)K=\mathrm{}`$, we have that either

$$\nu (KB_{s_0}(r))=0,$$
(6)
or

$$\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & >& \nu (KB_{s_0}(r))=_{B_{s_0}(r)}𝑑d^c\stackrel{~}{T}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{B_{s_0}(r)}𝑑d^c\stackrel{~}{T}_\epsilon \hfill \\ & =& \underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{B_{s_0}(r)}d^c\stackrel{~}{T}_\epsilon =_{B_{s_0}(r)}d^cT_\epsilon =_{f(B_{s_0}(r))}d^c\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Case 1. $`\nu (KB_{s_0}(r))=0.`$

In this case the negativity of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ implies that $`dd^c\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$. Therefore we can find a polydisk neighborhood $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3B_{s_0}(r)`$ of $`s_0`$ and a $`(2,1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3`$ such that:

1) $`f`$ is holomorphic in a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ (and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is smooth there);

2) $`\stackrel{~}{T}=i(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\overline{}\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ in a neighborhood of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^3`$;

3) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is smooth in a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$.

The zero-dimensionality of $`K`$ implies that there exists a nonempty open $`W\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`f`$ is defined and meromorphic on $`W\times \mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and that $`s_0^1W\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`s_0^1`$ is the first coordinate of $`s_0`$. As before we let

$$\mu (z_1)=_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}\stackrel{~}{T}=i_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{z_1}^2}(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

By the smoothness of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the function $`\mu `$ is bounded. Therefore by Lemma 7, $`f`$ extends meromorphically to a neighborhood of $`s_0`$.

Case 2. $`\nu (SB_{s_0}(r))<0.`$

By (7), the 5-cycle $`f(B_{s_0}(r))`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$. Furthermore, $`_{f(B_{s_0}(r))}d^c\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends only on the integer homology class of $`f(B_{s_0}(r))`$, since $`dd^c\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Hence,

$$_{f(B_{s_0}(r))}d^c\mathrm{\Omega }\delta <0,$$

where $`\delta `$ is independent of $`s_0`$ and $`r`$ (and depends only on $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). This shows that $`K`$ is finite, and completes the proof. ∎

Remark that our proof gives more. Namely, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}`$ is not homologous to zero in $`M\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}`$ then $`f(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$.

## 3. Generalizations and open questions

In \[Iv3\], the classes $`𝒫_k^{}`$ and $`𝒢_k`$ of complex spaces were introduced. Recall that $`𝒫_k^{}`$ is the class of normal complex spaces which carry a strictly positive $`(k,k)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{k,k}`$ with $`dd^c\mathrm{\Omega }^{k,k}0`$, and $`𝒢_k`$ is the subclass of $`𝒫_k^{}`$ which consists of complex spaces carrying a strictly positive $`(k,k)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{k,k}`$ with $`dd^c\mathrm{\Omega }^{k,k}=0`$. Note that $`𝒢_k`$ contains all compact complex manifolds of dimension $`k+1`$.

It is easy to observe that our above proof gives the following more general statement of Proposition 3:

###### Proposition 11.

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex manifold in the class $`𝒫_2^{}`$. Then every meromorphic map $`f:H_1^2(r)X`$ extends meromorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3A`$, where $`A`$ is a closed, complete pluripolar subset of Hausdorff dimension zero. If moreover $`X𝒢_2`$ then $`A`$ is discrete and for every ball $`B`$ with center $`aA`$ such that $`BA=\mathrm{}`$, $`f(B)`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$.

To consider the extension of mappings from higher dimensional domains, we introduce the Hartogs figures

$$H_d^k(r):=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^d(1r)\times \mathrm{\Delta }^k\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^d\times A^k(r)\right]^{d+k}.$$

We conjecture that the analogous result should hold for meromorphic mappings from $`H_d^k(r)`$ to compact manifolds (and spaces) in the classes $`𝒫_k^{}`$ and $`𝒢_k`$. In particular, Theorem 1 should be true for meromorphic mappings between equidimensional manifolds in all dimensions. The main difficulty lies in the fact that it is impossible in general to make the reductions (a)–(c) of §1. (Note that reductions (d)–(e) can be achieved in all dimensions.) However, these reductions are unnecessary in the case when our map is locally biholomorphic, as we state below.

###### Proposition 12.

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex space of dimension $`k+1`$. Then every holomorphic map $`f:H_1^k(r)X`$ with zero-dimensional fibers extends meromorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{k+1}A`$, where $`A`$ is discrete, and for every ball $`B`$ with center $`aA`$ such that $`BA=\mathrm{}`$, $`f(B)`$ is not homologous to zero in $`X`$.

The proof is by induction on the dimension $`n=k+1`$. For the inductive step, the function $`\mu `$ is defined in terms of the push-forward of a $`dd^c`$-closed, positive $`(k,k)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on a desingularization of $`X`$.


format: text

text:
# Inflation models, spectral index and observational constraints.

## 1 Introduction

It is generally supposed that structure in the Universe originates from a primordial gaussian curvature perturbation, generated by the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field during slow-roll inflation. Then the spectrum of the curvature perturbation $`\delta _H(k)`$ is determined by the inflaton potential $`V(\varphi )`$. In this paper we will consider the scale–dependence of the primordial spectrum, defined by the spectral index $`n`$:

$$n(k)12\frac{\mathrm{ln}\delta _H}{\mathrm{ln}k}=2M_{Pl}^2(V^{\prime \prime }/V)3M_{Pl}^2(V^{}/V)^2,$$
(1)
whereaaa$`M_{Pl}=2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$ is the Planck mass, $`a`$ is the scale factor and $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter, and $`k/a`$ is the wavenumber. the potential and its derivatives are evaluated at the epoch of horizon exit $`k=aH`$. The value of $`\varphi `$ at this epoch is given by $`\mathrm{ln}(k_{end}/k)=N(\varphi )=M_{Pl}^2_{\varphi _{end}}^\varphi (V/V^{})𝑑\varphi `$ , where $`k_{end}`$ is the scale leaving the horizon at the end of slow roll inflation and $`N(\varphi )`$ is the number of e-folds. In the majority of the inflation models, $`n`$ is practically scale-independent so that $`\delta _H^2k^{n1}`$, but we shall also discuss an interesting class of models giving significant scale dependence.

## 2 The observational constraints on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model

In the interest of simplicity and due to present observations $`^\mathrm{?}`$, we adopt the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$ and cold non-baryonic dark matter with negligible interaction. We shall constrain this model, including the spectral index, by performing a least-squares fit to the key observational quantities.

The parameters of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model are the primordial spectrum $`\delta _H(k)`$, the Hubble constant $`h`$ (in units of $`100\text{km}\text{s}^1\text{Mpc}^1`$), the total matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, and the reionization redshift $`z_R`$ (we consider complete and sudden reionization). $`z_R`$ can be estimated in terms of the other parameters because it can be related to the density perturbation and the the fraction of collapsed matter $`f`$ at the epoch of reionization, so we exclude it from the least-squares fit. In the case of the constant $`n`$ models we fix it at a reasonable value ($`z_R=20`$), while in the case of the running mass models we compute it assuming that reionization occurs when a fixed fraction of the matter $`f1`$ collapses. The spectrum is conveniently specified by its value at the COBE scale $`k_{COBE}=6.6H_0`$, and the spectral index $`n(k)`$. Excluding $`z_R`$, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model is therefore specified by five parameters in the case of a constant spectral index, or by six parameters in the case of running mass inflation models.

Taking as our starting point a study performed three years ago $`^\mathrm{?}`$, we consider seven observational quantities: the cosmological quantities $`h`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, which we are also taking as free parameters, and moreover the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\sigma _8`$, the COBE normalization and the first peak height in the cmb anisotropy. The adopted values and errors are given in the second and third line of Table 1. For a discussion of the data, see $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In common with earlier investigations, we assume the errors to be uncorrelated and random errors to dominate over systematic ones.

## 3 Results

We perform the least–squares fit with the CERN Minuit package; the quoted error bars use the parabolic approximation, while the exact errors computed by Minuit agree with the approximated ones to better than 10%.

In order to simplify the numerical procedure, we follow $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and parameterize the predicted value of $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{peak}}}`$ with the analytical formula $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{peak}}}=77.5\mu \text{K}\left(\frac{\delta _H(k_{COBE})}{1.94\times 10^5}\right)\left(\frac{220}{10}\right)^{\nu /2}`$ where

$$\nu 0.88(n_{COBE}1)0.37\mathrm{ln}(h/0.65)0.16\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0/0.35)+5.4h^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.019)0.65g(\tau )\tau $$
(2)
and $`\tau =0.035\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}h\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z_R)^3+1\mathrm{\Omega }_0}1\right)`$. The formula is fitted to the CMBfast$`^\mathrm{?}`$ results and agrees within 10% for a 1-$`\sigma `$ variation of the cosmological parameters, $`h,\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, and $`n=1.0\pm 0.05`$. With the function $`g(\tau )`$ set equal to 1, the formula contains the usual factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\tau )`$. By fitting the output of CMBfast, we introduce also $`g(\tau )=10.165\tau /(0.4+\tau )`$, so that our formula is accurate to a few percent over the interesting range of $`\tau `$.

Constant spectral index. For the case of a constant spectral index our result is given in Table 1 for $`z_R=20`$. In the case of no reionization ($`z_R=0`$) we obtain a slightly smaller spectral index, $`n=0.98\pm .05`$, and cosmological parameters within the observational error bar, in agreement with previous analysis $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This result is not enough yet to exclude completely proposed inflationary models, but a better determination of the peak height could strengthen the bound sufficiently to discriminate between them, especially in the case of new inflation models, which give low values of $`n`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Running mass models. We have also considered the scale-dependent spectral index, predicted in inflation models with a running inflaton mass $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In these models, one–loop corrections to the potential are taken into account by evaluating the scale dependent inflaton mass $`m^2(Q)`$ at $`Q\varphi `$. Then the spectral index can be parameterized by just two quantities:

$$\frac{n(k)1}{2}=\sigma e^{cN(\varphi )}c,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma `$ is an integration constant and $`c`$ is related to the inflaton coupling responsible of the mass running. The different signs of $`\sigma `$ and $`c`$ give raise to four different models of inflation. In general, without fine tuning, we expect

$`|c|\text{ }<|\sigma |\text{ }<1`$ $`|c|g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}^2M_{Pl}}{V_0}}`$ (4)
with $`g`$ denoting the gauge or Yukawa coupling of the inflaton, $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ the soft supersymmetry breaking mass of the particles in the loop and $`V_0`$ the value of the potential energy during inflation. With gravity-mediated susy breaking, typical values of the masses are $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2V_0/M_{Pl}^2`$, which makes $`c`$ of order of the coupling strength. For a gauge coupling, or an unsuppressed Yukawa coupling, we expect $`|c|10^1\text{ to }10^2`$.

Extremizing with respect to all other parameters, we have computed the $`\chi ^2`$ in the $`\sigma `$ vs. $`c`$ plane and obtained contour levels for $`\chi ^2`$ corresponding to the 70% and 95% confidence level in two variables. The results are shown in Figure 1.

In the case of Models (ii) and (iv), the allowed region corresponds to $`|c|`$ and $`|\sigma |`$ both small, giving a practically scale-independent spectral index, with a red and blue spectrum respectively.

In contrast, the allowed region for Models (i) and (iii) allows strong scale-dependence. In Model (i), a large departure from a constant spectral index is allowed for large $`\sigma `$; for the theoretically favored value $`\sigma 1`$ the variation between $`k_{COBE}`$ and $`8^1h\text{Mpc}^1`$ can be as large as 0.05, while the maximal change allowed by the data is 0.2. For Model (iii), a much larger departure from a constant spectral index is allowed, but in the theoretically favored regime $`|\sigma |c`$ one again finds a variation of at most 0.05.

## 4 Conclusion

We have evaluated the observational constraints on the spectral index $`n`$, using a range of data, and we find, for constant $`n`$ at 2-$`\sigma `$ level, $`0.88n1.11`$ for $`0z_R20`$.

We have also investigated the running mass models, parameterized by $`c`$ and $`\sigma `$. For $`c`$ and $`\sigma `$ with the same sign, we have found that indeed $`n`$ can vary by about $`0.05`$ between the COBE scale and $`8h^1\text{Mpc}`$. Moreover, if $`c`$ is positive as it would be for a gauge coupling, $`n1`$ can change sign between the COBE and $`8h^1\text{Mpc}`$ scales. It will be very interesting to see how the present situation changes with the advent of better data.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank D. H. Lyth with whom this work has been done. I would also like to thank the organizers of Moriond 2000 and the European Union for the financial support.

## References


text:
# Exact solution for the critical state in thin superconductor strips with field dependent or anisotropic pinning

## I Introduction

The critical state model  for the magnetic behavior of superconductors with flux-line pinning has proven very useful  though it originally was applied to the simple (demagnetization-free) longitudinal geometry of long superconductors in parallel magnetic field. It took over 30 years until an analytical solution of the critical state model was obtained for the more realistic transverse geometry of thin superconductors. The solutions were derived for thin disks  and strips  in a perpendicular magnetic field, extending an earlier work on superconductor strips with transport current, and finally for elliptic-shaped platelets. Recent detailed numerical work for strips  and disks  of finite thickness shows how the transition from longitudinal to transverse geometry occurs with changing aspect ratio of the specimen.

So far, in the transverse geometry all analytical solutions of the critical state model were restricted to the Bean model of constant critical current density $`j_c=`$ const, but in many experiments $`j_c=j_c(B)`$ depends on the local magnetic induction $`B`$. For example, the simple Kim model  $`j_c(B)=j_c(0)/(1+|B|/B_0)`$ was considered in many experimental and theoretical papers, see e.g. the reviews  and the partly analytical calculations for thin strips and disks. While numerical computations easily allow us to consider any $`j_c(B)`$ dependence, an exact analytical solution of some model may give deeper insight since it yields explicit dependences of the resulting quantities on the input parameters.

In the highly anisotropic high-$`T_c`$ superconductors the flux-line pinning in general depends on the angle $`\theta `$ between the local direction of the magnetic induction $`𝐁`$ and the $`c`$ axis, which in typical experiments is normal to the plane of the sample. For example, this type of anisotropy occurs when one takes into account the intrinsic pinning exerted by the CuO planes or the pinning by extended defects.  It has been shown recently  that for thin superconductors of any shape (with thickness $`d`$ much smaller than the lateral extension $`L`$ but larger than the magnetic penetration depth $`\lambda `$) any such out-of-plane-anisotropy of pinning is equivalent to an induction dependence of the critical sheet current $`J_c(B)`$ (the sheet current is defined as the current density integrated over the film thickness). Thus, the description of the two-dimensional critical state, e.g., in an anisotropic strip can be reduced to the analysis of a one-dimensional problem with some $`J_c(B)`$. In this case the characteristic scale $`B_0`$ over which $`J_c(B)`$ changes is of the order of $`\mu _0j_cd`$.

In this paper we present an analytical solution for the critical state in thin superconductor strips in perpendicular field with field dependent critical current density $`j_c(B)`$ or, equivalently, with anisotropic pinning described by a $`j_c(\theta )`$. A three-parameter model $`j_c(B)`$ consisting of two straight lines, an inclined line at small $`B`$ and a horizontal line at larger $`B`$, is considered. This rather general model is equivalent to a piecewise constant angular dependence $`j_c(\theta )=j_{c1}`$ for $`0\theta <\theta _0`$ and $`j_c(\theta )=j_{c2}`$ for $`\theta _0\theta <\pi /2`$ where $`j_{c1}`$, $`j_{c2}`$, and $`\theta _0`$ are the parameters of the model. We shall show below that the steepness of the flux front in the superconductor essentially depends on the anisotropy of pinning. In particular, in the case corresponding to the intrinsic pinning in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, the front is a very sharp step, which should be taken into account in analyzing data of local magnetic measurements. We shall also show that under certain conditions two penetrating flux fronts can occur in an anisotropic superconductor.

As usual, we consider here the cases when the characteristic magnetic field in the sample is sufficiently large such that the difference between the magnetic induction $`B`$ and the field $`H`$ may be disregarded. This condition is satisfied when $`j_cd`$ is much larger than the lower critical field $`H_{c1}`$ (otherwise, the so-called geometric barrier  must be taken into account). We shall thus express all the following equations in terms of the magnetic field $`H`$, related to the current density by the Maxwell equation $`𝐣=\times 𝐇`$.

## II Model and its solution

We consider an infinitely long strip of width $`2w`$ and thickness $`d`$, filling the space $`wxw`$, $`d/2zd/2`$, i.e. we place the $`y`$ axis of the coordinate system along the central line of the strip and the $`z`$ axis along the external magnetic field $`H_a`$ which is applied normal to the plane of the strip. The increasing applied field induces a sheet current $`J`$ along $`y`$, which is related to the $`z`$ component of the magnetic field in the plane $`z=0`$ by the Biot-Savart law,

$$H_z(x)=H_a+\frac{1}{2\pi }_w^w\frac{J(t)dt}{tx}.$$
(1)
Here and below all singular integrals are taken in the sense of the Cauchy principal value. The penetration of the magnetic flux into the superconducting strip is described by the following critical state equations: In the flux-free central region $`|x|b(H_a)`$ one has

$$H_z=0,$$
(2)
while in the region $`b(H_a)|x|w`$, where the flux already exists, one has

$$|J(x)|=J_c[H_z(x)].$$
(3)
The position $`x=b(H_a)`$ of the boundary separating the regions, is found by solving these equations. In Eq. (3) $`J_c(H_z)`$ is the critical value of the sheet current. At present an exact solution of Eqs. (1)–(3) is known  only for the Bean critical state model where $`J_c=`$ const. Below we shall obtain the exact solution for the more general case when $`J_c(|H_z|)`$ has the model form (see Fig. 1):

$`J_c(H_z)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{c1}\gamma H_z\mathrm{for}0H_zH_z^0,`$ (4)
$`J_c(H_z)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{c0}\mathrm{for}H_zH_z^0.`$ (5)
Here $`\gamma =(J_{c1}J_{c0})/H_z^0`$; the three parameters $`J_{c1}`$, $`J_{c0}`$, and $`H_z^0`$ may have any positive value.

As was mentioned above, in the case of thin superconductors the dependence of the critical current density $`j_c`$ on the angle $`\theta `$ between the local direction of the magnetic induction and the normal to the strip plane can be taken into account if one considers this superconductor as infinitely thin but with an $`H_z`$ dependent sheet current. The model dependence described by Eqs. (4) corresponds to the following $`\theta `$-dependence of the critical current density  shown in Fig. 1:

$`j_c(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`J_{c0}/d\mathrm{for}0\theta \theta _0,`$ (6)
$`j_c(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`J_{c1}/d\mathrm{for}\theta _0\theta \pi /2,`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _0=J_{c0}/2H_z^0`$. Thus, the case $`\gamma >0`$ describes intrinsic pinning by the CuO planes in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors ($`j_c`$ peaks at $`\theta =\pi /2`$), whereas the case $`\gamma <0`$ can be used to analyze pinning by columnar defects normal to the film ($`j_c`$ peaks at $`\theta =0`$). In both these cases one can find two-dimensional solutions of the critical state equations for strips of small but finite thickness using the results obtained below and Eqs. (5,6,9–11) of Ref. .

Accounting for the symmetry of the sheet current, $`J(x)=J(x)`$, we seek the solution of Eqs. (1)–(4) in the form

$$J(x)=\frac{x}{|x|}[J_0(x)+J_1(x)]$$
(8)
where

$`J_0(x)=J_{c0},b^2x^2w^2,`$ (9)
$`J_0(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2J_{c0}}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(w^2b^2)x^2}{w^2(b^2x^2)}}\right]^{1/2},x^2b^2,`$ (10)
while $`J_1(x)`$ is a new unknown function. The parameter $`b`$ defines the position of the flux front, i.e., $`x=b`$ is the point where $`H_z`$ goes to zero. This parameter depends on $`H_a`$ and must be determined together with $`J_1(x)`$. Both $`J_0(x)`$ and $`J_1(x)`$ (and the magnetic field below) are even functions, which depend only on $`x^2`$. The function $`J_0(x)`$ has the form of the exact solution  to Eqs. (1)–(3) in the case when $`J_c=J_{c0}`$ and the external magnetic field is equal to

$`H_b=H_{cs}\mathrm{arccosh}(w/b)`$

where $`H_{cs}=J_{c0}/\pi `$. Using Eqs. (1), (6)–(8), the expression for the magnetic field can be rewritten as

$$H_z(x)=H_0(x)\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{a^2}\frac{J_1(\sqrt{s})ds}{sx^2},$$
(11)
where $`a`$ is defined by the equality $`H_z(a)=H_z^0`$, and $`H_0(x)`$ is the sum of $`H_a`$ and the field generated by the current $`J_0(x)`$,

$`H_0(x)=H_aH_b,0x^2b^2,`$ (12)
$`H_0(x)=H_aH_b+`$ (13)
$`H_{cs}\mathrm{arctanh}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(x^2b^2)w^2}{x^2(w^2b^2)}}\right]^{1/2},b^2x^2w^2.`$ (14)
In Eq. (9) it was taken into account that $`J_1(x)`$ differs from zero only in the region $`0x^2a^2`$ where $`H_z(x)<H_z^0`$.

With the above formulas, the critical state equations take the following form: In the interval $`0x^2b^2`$ one has

$$H_0(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{a^2}\frac{J_1(\sqrt{s})ds}{sx^2},$$
(15)
and in the region $`b^2x^2a^2`$ we arrive at

$$H_0(x)H_z^0=\frac{J_1(x)}{\gamma }+\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{a^2}\frac{J_1(\sqrt{s})ds}{sx^2}.$$
(16)
In deriving Eq. (13) we have expressed $`H_z(x)`$ for $`b^2x^2a^2`$ in terms of $`J_1(x)`$ using the equality

$$H_z(x)=H_z^0\frac{J_1(x)}{\gamma }$$
(17)
that follows from formulas (3), (4), (6), (7). Eqs. (12), (13) are linear singular integral equations with Cauchy type kernel. The theory of such equations is well elaborated, and hence we can find $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`J_1(x)`$ for any given $`H_a`$.

To do this, we introduce the following notations:

$`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}},\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ,`$ (18)
$`\alpha _+\alpha ,\alpha _{}\alpha +1,`$ (19)
$`F_\pm (t)(a^2t^2)^{\alpha _\pm }|t^2b^2|^\beta `$ (20)
and define the function $`f(t)`$ by the equalities

$`f(t)=2H_0(t),0t<b,`$ (21)
$`f(t)=2\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha [H_z^0H_0(t)],b<ta,`$ (22)
i.e., $`f(t)`$ is discontinuous at $`t=b`$. Then, the solution of Eqs. (12), (13) can be represented as follows: In the interval $`0x^2b^2`$ one has

$$J_1(x)=\frac{2}{\pi }|x|F_\pm (x)_0^a\frac{f(t)dt}{(t^2x^2)F_\pm (t)},$$
(23)
while in the interval $`b^2x^2a^2`$ we arrive at

$`J_1(x)=\mathrm{cos}\pi \alpha [f(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\pi }}|x|F_\pm (x){\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{f(t)dt}{(t^2x^2)F_\pm (t)}}],`$ (24)
and $`J_1(x)=0`$ for $`a^2x^2w^2`$. Here the integrals are taken in the sense of the Cauchy principal value; $`F_+`$ and $`F_{}`$ refer to positive and negative values of $`\gamma `$, respectively. If $`\gamma <0`$, for the above solution to exist it is necessary that

$`{\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{f(t)}{F_{}(t)}}𝑑t=0,`$ (25)
and

$`{\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{t^2f(t)}{F_{}(t)}}𝑑t=0.`$ (26)
These two equalities enable us to determine $`b`$ and $`a`$ when $`\gamma <0`$. If $`\gamma >0`$, the necessary condition for the existence of the solution is

$$_0^a\frac{f(t)}{F_+(t)}𝑑t=0.$$
(27)
A second relation between $`a`$ and $`b`$ in this case is obtained from the analysis of the magnetic field near the point $`x^2=a^2`$. It turns out that

$$H_z(x)H_z^0C_\pm \frac{\gamma }{2|\gamma |}(4+\gamma ^2)^{1/2}(x^2a^2)^{\alpha _\pm }$$
(28)
if $`x^2`$ tends to $`a^2`$ from above, and

$$H_z(x)H_z^0C_\pm (a^2x^2)^{\alpha _\pm }$$
(29)
if $`x^2`$ approaches $`a^2`$ from below. Here $`C_\pm `$ are certain integrals independent of $`x`$; the subscripts $`+`$ and $``$ refer to the cases of positive and negative $`\gamma `$, respectively. Since $`H_z(x)H_z^0`$ when $`x^2>a^2`$, we find that $`C_+0`$. On the other hand, one has $`H_z(x)H_z^0`$ when $`x^2<a^2`$, and thus $`C_\pm 0`$. Hence, one concludes that $`C_+=0`$. This is the second equality in the case of positive $`\gamma `$, and it has the form

$`{\displaystyle _0^b}{\displaystyle \frac{f(t)dt}{(a^2t^2)F_+(t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(a)}{2\alpha a(a^2b^2)^{1/2}}}+`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle _b^a}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f(t)}{t(t^2b^2)^\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{f(a)}{a(a^2b^2)^\beta }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{tdt}{(a^2t^2)^{1+\alpha }}}=0.`$ (31)
The Eqs. (19) and (22) determine $`a`$ and $`b`$ when $`\gamma >0`$.

## III Analysis

Let us now analyze the obtained solution. For evaluation of the integrals in Eqs. (9), (15)-(19), (22) we use the method given in Appendix A. Some profiles $`J(x)`$, Eq. (6), and $`H_z(x)`$, Eq. (9), obtained in this way are shown in Figs. 2 to 5.

It should be noted that no restriction on $`C_{}`$ is obtained when $`\gamma <0`$. In this situation the constant $`C_{}`$ is not equal to zero but negative, and thus the derivative of $`H_z`$ with respect to $`x`$ becomes infinite at $`x=a`$. In the same point a sharp bend occurs in $`J(x)`$. In other words, we obtain that two flux fronts exist in the sample, at $`x=b`$ and at $`x=a`$, see Figs. 2, 4, and 5. Of course, the singularities in $`H_z`$ and in $`J`$ at $`x=a`$ result from the sharp bend in our model $`J_c(H_z)`$ at $`H_z=H_z^0`$, see Eqs. (4) and Fig. 1. However, one may expect that in the case $`\gamma <0`$ our qualitative conclusion on the existence of the second flux front in the sample remains valid if $`J_c(H_z)`$ is a smooth function but its behavior changes abruptly over an interval smaller than $`H_{cs}`$. Such changes indeed may occur if the critical current density has sufficiently sharp angular dependence $`j_c(\theta )`$.

We shall now describe $`H_z(x)`$ and $`J(x)`$ in the vicinity of the point $`x=b`$ in which $`H_z=0`$. According to Eq. (14), at this point $`|J(b)|=J_{c1}`$. When $`x^2b^2`$, it follows from the exact solution that

$$|J(x)|J_{c1}C_b^\pm (b^2x^2)^\beta ,$$
(32)
while if $`x^2b^2`$, one has

$$|J(x)|J_{c1}\frac{\gamma }{(4+\gamma ^2)^{1/2}}C_b^\pm (x^2b^2)^\beta .$$
(33)
Here $`C_b^+`$ and $`C_b^{}`$ are certain integrals which do not depend on $`x`$ and have negative values. Formulas (23) and (24) show that in the case $`\gamma >0`$, $`|J(x)|`$ has a sharp peak at $`x=b`$, whereas for $`\gamma <0`$, $`J(x)`$ is a monotonic function and its derivative with respect to $`x`$ becomes infinite at $`x=b`$, see Figs. 2, 4, and 5. Taking into account the above formulas and Eq. (14), one obtains the distribution of $`H_z`$ near $`x=b`$,

$`H_z`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}xb,`$ (34)
$`H_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_b^\pm }{(4+\gamma ^2)^{1/2}}}(x^2b^2)^\beta \mathrm{for}xb.`$ (35)
When $`\gamma =0`$, we arrive at the well-known result  $`H_z(x^2b^2)^{1/2}`$. However, in the general case, taking into account the equality $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}(\gamma /2)`$, one may conclude that the greater $`\gamma `$ is, the sharper is the $`H_z`$ profile, Fig. 2. Interestingly, the dependence $`(xb)^\beta `$ sufficiently well describes $`H_z(x)`$ even if $`x`$ is not too close to $`b`$, see Fig. 6.

Consider now the solution in the limit of small positive values of $`\gamma `$. If $`\gamma 0`$, two cases are possible: $`H_z`$ remains a constant, or it increases as $`\gamma ^1`$ (i.e., $`J_{c1}J_{c0}=`$ const.). In the first case one has $`\alpha \gamma /2\pi `$, $`H_aH_b\gamma `$, and the function $`f(t)`$ tends to zero. Thus, according to Eqs. (15) and (16), $`J_10`$, and the solution goes over to the well-known result  for the Bean critical state model with $`J_c=J_{c0}`$. In the second case $`J_0(x)+J_1(x)`$ also tends to the solution corresponding to a constant $`J_c`$ but now $`J_c=J_{c1}`$.

In the limiting case $`\gamma +\mathrm{}`$, this parameter drops out from Eqs. (15), (16), (19), (22), and $`J_1(x)`$ depends only on $`H_z^0`$, $`J_{c0}`$. In other words, if $`J_{c1}J_{c0},H_z^0`$ or $`J_{c1}>J_{c0}H_z^0`$, the solution becomes practically independent of $`J_{c1}`$. The distribution of the magnetic field in this case can be understood using Eq. (26). It turns out that $`C_b^+\gamma H_z^0`$ for $`\gamma 1`$, and hence

$$H_z(x)H_z^0(x^2b^2)^\beta $$
(36)
with $`\beta 0`$. This means we have an abrupt step of height $`H_z^0`$ at $`x=b`$ (see Fig. 2).

It should be emphasized that this limiting case, $`\gamma +\mathrm{}`$, corresponds to intrinsic pinning in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors in which the ratio $`[j_c(\pi /2)/j_c(0)]=J_{c1}/J_{c0}`$ can be sufficiently large (see, e.g., Ref. ). Thus, our solution of this limit can be used for analyzing the critical state in these superconductors. In particular, it follows from Eqs. (19), (22) that the position of the flux front, $`b/w`$, is a function of $`H_a/H_{cs}`$ and of the parameter $`H_z^0/H_{cs}`$, see Fig. 7. In general this function can not be

fitted by scaling the dependence found in the isotropic case,

$$\frac{b_0}{w}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(H_a/H_{cs})},$$
(37)
using some effective value of $`H_{cs}`$. Rather, the shape of $`b(H_a)`$ essentially depends on the ratio $`H_z^0/H_{cs}`$. Therefore, measuring $`b(H_a)`$ in principle can give information not only on $`H_{cs}=J_{c0}/\pi `$ but also on $`H_z^0`$, i.e., about the width of the peak in $`j_c(\theta )`$, see Eq. (5). In particular, when $`H_z^0J_{c0}`$, Eqs. (19), (22) lead to the following expression for the front position:

$$\left(\frac{b}{w}\right)^2\frac{1+k\left(H_z^0/H_{cs}\right)^2\mathrm{tanh}^2(H_a/H_{cs})}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(H_a/H_{cs})},$$
(38)
where the constant $`k`$ is determined by the root of the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}(u^21)=u\mathrm{arctan}u,`$ (39)
$`k={\displaystyle \frac{16}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{(1+u^2)^2}}0.394.`$ (40)
Note that the right hand side of Eq. (29) cannot be reduced to the dependence (28) in the whole interval of changes of $`H_a`$ when $`H_z^0`$ is different from zero. The exact values of the front position $`b(H_a)`$ are shown in Fig. 7 for the limit of large $`\gamma 1`$, for $`J_{c1}=11`$ and $`H_z^0=0\mathrm{}1.5`$ in units of $`J_{c0}=1`$.

In the third limiting case when $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, one has $`\beta 1`$, $`C_b^{}H_z^0`$ and the the induction profile becomes

$$H_z(x)(x^2b^2)$$
(41)
with a small prefactor of the order of $`H_z^0/|\gamma |`$. Thus, for $`\gamma 1`$ the flux front at $`x=b`$ practically disappears while, according to Eq. (20), the second front near $`x=a`$ is well developed, see Fig. 5.

Finally, we consider in some detail the case of small negative values of $`\gamma `$ when $`H_z^0H_{cs}=J_{c0}/\pi `$ while the ratio $`J_{c0}/J_{c1}`$ is not close to unity. This case can give some idea of pinning by columnar defects, which produce a peak in $`j_c(\theta )`$ at $`\theta =0`$. Indeed, if one assumes that the characteristic width of the peak, $`\theta _0`$, is small ($`\theta _01`$), then it follows from the definitions of $`H_z^0`$ and $`\gamma `$ that $`H_z^0J_{c0}/2\theta _0`$ and $`|\gamma |<2\theta _0`$. Since the solution with $`\gamma =0`$ and $`J_c=J_{c1}`$ describes the critical state in the strip before the irradiation \[we assume that the columnar defects do not change $`j_c(\theta )`$ at $`\theta >\theta _0`$\], the difference between the solutions corresponding to $`\gamma 0`$ and $`\gamma =0`$ provides information on pinning by columnar defects. In the considered case this difference is small, and it can be analyzed analytically. In particular, we obtain the following relation between the positions of the flux fronts, $`b`$ and $`b_1`$, obtained at the same $`H_a`$ in the strip with and without columnar defects, respectively:

$$\mathrm{arccosh}\frac{w}{b_1}\mathrm{arccosh}\frac{w}{b}=\frac{|\gamma |}{\pi }g(h),$$
(42)
where $`h\pi H_a/J_{c1}`$, $`w/b_1=\mathrm{cosh}(h)`$, and the function $`g(h)`$ has the form:

$`g(h)={\displaystyle _0^h}\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{cosh}t)𝑑t.`$ (43)
Since $`g`$ is a nonlinear function of $`h`$,

$`g(h){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^2+0.411(1e^{1.8h}),`$ (44)
the exact dependence $`b(H_a)`$ can not be described by Eq. (28) with some effective $`H_{cs}`$. The prefactor

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\gamma |}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta _0}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{j_c(0)j_c(\pi /2)}{j_c(0)}}`$

in Eq. (31) is determined by the characteristics of pinning by the columnar defects, i.e., by the width and height of the peak in $`j_c(\theta )`$.

## IV conclusions

An exact solution of the critical state equations for the strip in perpendicular magnetic field is derived for an induction-dependent critical sheet current $`J_c(H_z)`$ described by Eqs. (4). This model dependence may be used to simulate the intrinsic pinning by CuO planes

($`\gamma >0`$) or pinning by extended defects ($`\gamma <0`$) in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. In the case $`\gamma >0`$, the $`H_z`$ profile in the vicinity of the flux front is sharper than in the isotropic case, and the current density has a sharp peak there. In the limiting case, $`\gamma 1`$, which may describe the intrinsic pinning in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, the field profile $`H_z(x)`$ has a sharp rectangular step. In the opposite situation, $`\gamma <0`$, two flux fronts can occur in the superconductor; the $`H_z`$ profile near $`x=b`$ is less steep than in the isotropic case, and the current density is a monotonic function of $`x`$. In both cases of positive and negative $`\gamma `$ the profile $`H_z(x)`$ in a sufficiently large vicinity of the flux front is well approximated by the expression $`H_z(x)(xb)^\beta `$ with the exponent $`\beta =0.5\pi ^1\mathrm{arctan}(\gamma /2)`$.

The experimental investigation of flux-density profiles near the flux front and of the $`H_z`$ dependence of the penetration depth can give information on the strength and anisotropy of flux line pinning in superconductors.

###### Acknowledgements.

G.P.M. acknowledges the hospitality of the Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung, Stuttgart.

## A Numerical evaluation

The condition that two integrals have to vanish, e.g. Eqs. (17,18) of the form $`I_1(a,b)=0`$ and $`I_2(a,b)=0`$, we satisfy by minimizing the function $`U(a,b)=I_1^2+I_2^2`$ with respect to $`a`$ and $`b`$. After this we calculate the sheet current $`J_1(x)`$ from Eqs. (15,16) and the magnetic field $`H_z(x)`$ from Eqs. (9) and (14).

The integrals (9), (15-19), and (22) over the variable $`t`$ have integrands which possess one or several infinities at the points $`t=0`$, $`t=x`$, $`t=b`$ and $`t=a`$ where the denominators vanish. We evaluate such integrals in the following way.

In the integrals containing a factor $`(tx)^1`$ we subtract the singular part and integrate it analytically, e.g.,

$`{\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{f(t)dt}{t^2x^2}}𝑑t={\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{f(t)f(x)}{t^2x^2}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)}{2x}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+x}{ax}}.`$ (A1)
Then we divide the integration interval into pieces bounded by the remaining singularities, $`0tb`$, $`bta`$, and $`at1`$. In each interval we substitute the integration variable by an appropriate function $`t=t(u)`$ and integrate over $`u`$ such that the new integrand has no infinity and vanishes rapidly at the boundaries. This new integral may thus be evaluated as a sum over an equidistant grid $`u_i`$ with constant weights. For example we write

$`{\displaystyle _0^\tau }g(t)𝑑t={\displaystyle _0^1}g[t(u)]t^{}(u)𝑑u{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}g_iw_i`$ (A2)
with $`g_i=g[t(u_i)]`$, $`u_i=(i1/2)/N`$, $`w_i=t^{}(u_i)/N`$, $`t^{}(u)=dt/du`$, and $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{}N`$. This integration method is very accurate if the substitution is chosen such that the weights $`w_i`$ and the products $`g_iw_i`$ vanish rapidly at the integration boundaries, e.g., $`w_iu_i^p`$ and $`w_i(1u_i)^q`$ with $`p1`$ and $`q1`$. Simple choices of this substitution in the example (A2) are

$`t(u)=(3u^22u^3)\tau ,t^{}(u)=6u(1u)\tau ,`$ (A3)
or better,

$`t(u)=(10u^315u^4+6u^5)\tau ,t^{}(u)=30u^2(1u)^2\tau .`$ (A4)
Higher accuracy is achieved by the following substitution. We chose equidistant $`u_i=(i1/2)/N`$ as above and then iterate (A3) $`m`$ times starting with $`s_i=u_i`$ and $`w_i=\tau /N`$ according to

$`w:=6(ss^2)w,s:=3s^22s^3(m\mathrm{times}).`$ (A5)
Finally we write $`t(u_i)=s_i\tau `$. The weights $`w_i=t^{}(u_i)/N`$ of this substitution vanish at the boundaries with exponents $`p=q=2^{(m1)}`$, which can be made arbitrarily large. For example, using $`m=5`$ iterations one gets the exponents $`p=q=2^4=16`$.

An infinity $`g(t)1/t^\eta `$ in the original integral (A2) leads, after this substitution, to a new integrand vanishing at $`t=0`$ as $`g[t(u)]t^{}(u)u^\vartheta `$ with $`\vartheta =p(1\eta )\eta `$. Thus, for the example $`\eta =1/2`$ with $`p=16`$ the new integrand near $`u=0`$ vanishes as $`u^{7.5}`$ and the terms in the sum (A2) as $`(i1/2)^{7.5}`$, in spite of the singular original integrand. For general exponent $`\eta `$, to reach high accuracy one should choose $`m`$ so large that the new exponent is $`\vartheta =(1\eta )2^{m1}\eta 4`$, or approximately $`m3.51.5\mathrm{ln}(1\eta )`$. To avoid spurious results due to rounding errors, one has to add in all vanishing denominators a small $`ϵ10^{15}`$ by writing, e.g., $`(|t^2b^2|+ϵ)^\beta `$.

In the limit of a large negative slope $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ one has $`\beta 1`$ and the integrals (17,18) containing a factor $`|t^2b^2|^\beta `$ are close to diverging. In this case the singular part in these integrals should be integrated analytically, similar as shown in Eq. (A1). The subtracted terms are conveniently chosen such that the integral which has to be taken analytically is simple, e.g., $`t(b^2t^2)^\beta 𝑑t`$. Note that the numerator $`f(t)`$ in Eqs. (15–19,22) is discontinuous at $`t=b`$.


text:
# Tsallis’ entropy maximization procedure revisited

## I Introduction

Tsallis’ thermostatistics  is by now recognized as a new paradigm for statistical mechanical considerations. One of its crucial ingredients, Tsallis’ normalized probability distribution , is obtained by following the well known MaxEnt route . One maximizes Tsallis’ generalized entropy

$$\frac{S_q}{k}=\frac{1_{i=1}^wp_i^q}{q1},$$
(1)
($`kk(q)`$ tends to the Boltzmann constant $`k_B`$ in the limit $`q1`$ ) subject to the constraints (generalized expectation values)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}}p_i`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^wp_i^qO_j^{(i)}}{_{i=1}^wp_i^q}}`$ $`=`$ $`O_j_q,`$ (3)
where $`p_i`$ is the probability assigned to the microscopic configuration $`i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},w`$) and one sums over all possible configurations $`w`$. $`O_j^{(i)}`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$) denote the $`n`$ relevant observables (the observation level ), whose generalized expectation values $`O_j_q`$ are (assumedly) a priori known.

The Lagrange multipliers recipe entails maximizing

$$F=\frac{S_q}{k}\alpha _0\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}p_i1\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j\left(\frac{_{i=1}^wp_i^qO_j^{(i)}}{_{i=1}^wp_i^q}O_j_q\right),$$
(4)
yielding

$$p_i=\frac{f_i^{1/(1q)}}{\overline{Z}_q},$$
(5)
where

$$f_i=1\frac{(1q)_j\lambda _j\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right)}{_jp_j^q},$$
(6)
is the so-called configurational characteristic  and

$$\overline{Z}_q=\underset{i}{}f_i^{1/(1q)},$$
(7)
stands for the partition function.

The above procedure, originally employed in , overcomes most of the problems posed by the old, unnormalized way of evaluating Tsallis’generalized mean values . Some hardships remain, though. One of them is that numerical difficulties are sometimes encountered, as the $`p_i`$ expression is explicitly self-referential. An even more serious problem is also faced: a maximum is not necessarily guaranteed. Indeed, analyzing the concomitant Hessian so as to ascertain just what kind of extreme we face, one encounters the unpleasant fact that this Hessian is not diagonal.

In the present effort we introduce an alternative Lagrange route, that overcomes the above mentioned problems.

## II The new Lagrange multipliers’ set

We extremize again (1) subject to the constraints (3), but, and herein lies the central idea, rephrase (4) by recourse to the alternative form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}p_i^q\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right)=0,$$
(8)
with $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We have now

$$F=\frac{S_q}{k}\alpha _0\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}p_i1\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}p_i^q\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right),$$
(9)
so that, following the customary variational procedure and eliminating $`\alpha _0`$ we find that the probabilities are, formally, still given by (5). However, in terms of the new set of Lagrange multipliers, the configurational characteristics do not depend explicitly on the probabilities

$$f_i^{}=1(1q)\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{}\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right).$$
(10)
Comparing (10) with (6), it is clear that the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _j`$ of the Tsallis-Mendes-Plastino formalism (TMP)  and $`\lambda _j^{}`$ (present treatment) can be connected via

$$\lambda _j^{}=\frac{\lambda _j}{_ip_i^q},$$
(11)
which leads to the nice result $`f_i^{}=f_i`$. The probabilities that appear in (11) are those special ones that maximize the entropy, not generic ones. The ensuing, new partition function is also of the form (7), with $`f_i>0`$ the well known Tsallis’ cut-off condition . Notice that now the expression for the MaxEnt probabilities $`p_i`$ is NOT explicitly self-referential.

In order to ascertain the kind of extreme we are here facing we study the Hessian, that now is of diagonal form. The maximum condition simplifies then to the requirement

$$\frac{^2F}{p_i^2}<0.$$
(12)
The above derivatives are trivially performed yielding

$$\frac{^2F}{p_i^2}=qp_i^{q2}f_i,$$
(13)
which formally coincides with the maximum requirement one finds in the case of Tsallis’ unnormalized formalism. Since the $`f_i`$ are positive-definite quantities, for a maximum one should demand that $`q>0`$.

Extremes found by following the celebrated Lagrange procedure depend only on the nature of the constraints, not on the form in which they are expressed. Thus, the two sets of multipliers lead to the same numerical values for the micro-state probabilities. Via (11) one is always able to establish a connection between both treatments.

The present algorithm exhibits the same nice properties of the TMP formalism, namely:

* The MaxEnt probabilities are invariant under uniform shifts of the Hamiltonian’s energy spectrum (see, for instance, the illuminating discussion of Di Sisto et al.).

Indeed, after performing the transformation

$`ϵ_i`$ $``$ $`ϵ_i+ϵ_0`$ (14)
$`U_q`$ $``$ $`U_qϵ_0,`$ (15)
on equation (5), with $`f_i`$ given by (10), we trivially find that the probabilities $`p_i`$ keep their forms invariant if the $`\lambda _j^{}`$ do not change. Due to relation (11), the $`\lambda _j`$ are invariant too.
* The mean value of unity equals unity, i.e., $`1_q=1`$, which is not the case with the unnormalized expectation values .
* One easily finds that, for two independent subsystems $`A,B`$, energies add up: $`U_q(A+B)=U_q(A)+U_q(B)`$.

## III OLM treatment and Rènyi’s measure

The above OLM recipe has the purpose of diagonalizing the Hessian characterizing the kind of extreme one finds after a Lagrange treatment. It is natural to ask whether the concomitant recipe works also for other information measures in addition to the Tsallis’ one. We discuss next the Rènyi’s measure ($`R_q`$) instance  in an OLM context. We have

$$\frac{R_q}{k}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+(1q)S_q\right]}{1q},$$
(16)
or (Cf. (1))

$$\frac{R_q}{k}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(_ip_i^q\right)}{q1}.$$
(17)
We extremize now $`R_q`$ subject to the constraints (8) with Lagrange multipiers $`\mu _j^{}`$. The ensuing Lagrange functional reads

$$F^{}=\frac{R_q}{k}\alpha _0\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}p_i1\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mu _j^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}p_i^q\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right),$$
(18)
whose first derivatives are

$$\frac{F^{}}{p_i}=\frac{qp_i^{q1}}{(q1)_ip_i^q}\alpha _0qp_i^{q1}\underset{j}{}\mu _j^{}\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right)=0.$$
(19)
The entropy term will lead to a self referencial probability distribution. We have

$$p_i=\frac{(f_i^{})^{\frac{1}{1q}}}{Z_q^{}},$$
(20)
with a functional characteristic given by

$$f_i^{}=1+(1q)\underset{i}{}p_i^q\underset{j}{}\mu _j^{}\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right),$$
(21)
and the partition function

$$Z_q^{}=\underset{i}{}(f_i^{})^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(22)
We see that the OLM treatment leads to a self-referential solution that the “Rènyi-TMP” treatament does not exhibit. Indeed, on account of the fact both the constraints and the entropy share the $`_ip_i^q`$ denominator, the TMP-Rènyi distribution has characteristics of the form

$$f_i=1+(1q)\underset{j}{}\mu _j\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right).$$
(23)
Comparing Eqs. (21) and (23), one observes that the Lagrange multipliers are connected via

$$\mu _j^{}=\frac{\mu _j}{_ip_i^q},$$
(24)
that is the same relation found for Tsallis’ measure (see Equation (11)). The following correspondence can be appreciated

$$\lambda _j^{}=\mu _j,$$

since the configurational characteristics of Equation (23) is identical to the one of Equation (10).

Consider now, for the second derivatives, the non-diagonal terms. One has. in the OLM instance,

$$\frac{^2F^{}}{p_jp_i}=\frac{q^2}{1q}\frac{(p_ip_j)^{q1}}{\left(_kp_k^q\right)^2}.$$
(25)
If one uses the standard TMP approach of Ref.  one finds, instead, for these non-diagonal terms,

$$\frac{^2F}{p_jp_i}=\frac{q^2}{1q}\frac{f_i(p_ip_j)^{q1}}{\left(_kp_k^q\right)^2}.$$
(26)
There is an important distinction to be made between (25) and (26), that refers to the origin of the non-diagonal terms. In the first case, they have as a source just the entropy term of the Lagrangian. In the second, the constraints also contribute.

As a consequence we gather that the OLM approach will work as nicely as in the Tsallis case only for those measures that do not give rise to off-diagonal terms in the associated Hessian.

## IV Thermodynamics

We pass now to the question of writing down the basic mathematical relationships of Thermodynamics, as expressed with respect to the new set of Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _j^{}`$.

In order to do this in the most general quantal fashion we shall work in a basis-independent way. This requires consideration of the statistical operator (or density operator) $`\widehat{\rho }`$ that maximizes Tsallis’ entropy, subject to the foreknowledge of $`M`$ generalized expectation values (corresponding to $`M`$ operators $`\widehat{O}_j`$). These take the form

$$\widehat{O}_j_q=\frac{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{O}_j)}{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)},j=1,\mathrm{},M.$$
(27)
To these we must add, of course, the normalization requirement

$$Tr\widehat{\rho }=1.$$
(28)
The TMP formalism, where relations are written in terms of the “old” Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _j`$, yields the usual thermodynamical relationships , namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{O}_j_q}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_q}{k}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _j`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _i}}\left(\mathrm{ln}_qZ_q\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{O}_j_q,`$ (30)
where

$$\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q=\frac{\overline{Z}_q^{1q}1}{1q}$$
(31)
and

$$\mathrm{ln}_qZ_q=\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q\underset{j}{}\lambda _j\widehat{O}_j_q,$$
(32)
so that the essential mathematical structure of Thermodynamics is preserved.

Following the standard procedure  one gets

$$\widehat{\rho }=\overline{Z}_q^1\left[1(1q)\underset{j}{\overset{M}{}}\lambda _j^{}\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}},$$
(33)
where $`\overline{Z}_q`$ stands for the partition function

$$\overline{Z}_q=Tr\left[1(1q)\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{}\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{1q}}.$$
(34)
Enters here Tsallis’cut-off condition . The form (33) does not a priori guarantee that we will have a positive-definite operator. Some additional considerations are requested.

Consider the operator

$$\widehat{A}=1(1q)\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{}\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right)$$
(35)
enclosed within parentheses in (33). One must ensure its positive-definite character. This entails that the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{A}`$ must be non-negative quantities. This can be achieved by recourse to an heuristic cut-off procedure. We replace (33) by

$$\widehat{\rho }=\overline{Z}_q^1\left[\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{A})\right]^{1/(1q)},$$
(36)
with $`\overline{Z}_q`$ given by

$$\overline{Z}_q=Tr\left[\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{A})\right]^{1/(1q)},$$
(37)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step-function. Equations (36)-(37) are to be re-interpreted as follows. Let $`|i`$ and $`\alpha _i,`$ stand, respectively, for the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the operator (35), whose spectral decomposition is then

$$\widehat{A}=\underset{i}{}\alpha _i|ii|.$$
(38)
In the special basis used above $`\widehat{\rho }`$ adopts the appearance

$$\widehat{\rho }=\overline{Z}_q^1\underset{i}{}f(\alpha _i)|ii|,$$
(39)
with $`f(x)`$ defined as

$$f(x)=0,forx0,$$
(40)
and

$$f(x)=x^{\frac{1}{1q}},forx>0.$$
(41)
Notice that $`f(x)`$ possesses, for $`0<q<1,`$ a continuous derivative for all $`x.`$ Moreover,

$$\frac{df(x)}{dx}=\left(\frac{1}{q1}\right)\left[x\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\right]^{\frac{q}{1q}}.$$
(42)
In terms of the statistical operator, Tsallis’ entropy $`S_q`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_q}{k}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q1}}Tr\left[\widehat{\rho }^q\left(\widehat{\rho }^{1q}\widehat{I}\right)\right]`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q1}}Tr\left[\widehat{\rho }^q\left(\overline{Z}_q^{q1}\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{A})\widehat{I}\right)\right]`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z}_q^{q1}}{q1}}Tr\left[\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{A})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)}{(q1)}},`$ (45)
where $`\widehat{I}`$ is the unity operator.

Obviously, $`\widehat{\rho }`$ commutes with $`\widehat{A}`$. The product of these two operators can be expressed in the common basis that diagonalizes them

$$\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{A})=\overline{Z}_q^q\underset{i}{}[f(\alpha _i)]^q\alpha _i|ii|,$$
(46)
which entails, passing from the special basis $`|i`$ to the general situation, that

$$\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{A})=\widehat{\rho }^q\left[1(1q)\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{}\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right)\right],$$
(47)
and, consequently

$$\frac{S_q}{k}=\frac{\overline{Z}_q^{q1}1}{q1}Tr\left(\widehat{\rho }^q\right)+\overline{Z}_q^{q1}\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{}Tr\left[\widehat{\rho }^q\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right)\right].$$
(48)
Since the last term of the right-hand-side vanishes, by definition (8), we finally arrive at

$$\frac{S_q}{k}=\frac{\overline{Z}_q^{q1}1}{q1}Tr\left(\widehat{\rho }^q\right).$$
(49)
Now, from the very definition (in terms of $`\widehat{\rho }`$) of Tsallis’ entropy $`S_q`$ , we find

$$Tr\left(\widehat{\rho }^q\right)=1+(1q)\frac{S_q}{k},$$
(50)
so that (49) and (50) lead to

$$Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)=\overline{Z}_q^{1q}$$
(51)
and

$$S_q=k\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q,$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q`$ has been introduced in (31).

Using (51), equation (11) can be rewritten as

$$\lambda _j^{}=\frac{\lambda _j}{\overline{Z}_q^{1q}}.$$
(53)
Following  we define now

$$\mathrm{ln}_qZ_q^{}=\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^{}\widehat{O}_j_q,$$
(54)
which leads finally to (see (29) and (30))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{O}_j_q}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_q}{k}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Z}_q^{1q}\lambda _j^{}=\lambda _j`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _j^{}}}\left(\mathrm{ln}_qZ_q^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{O}_j_q.`$ (56)
Equations (55) and (56) constitute the basic Information Theory relations on which to build up, à la Jaynes , Statistical Mechanics. Notar que OLM conduce a las mismas relaciones que TMP, y que no ha sido recesario tomar $`k`$ como constante en ninguna parte del desarrollo.

As a special instance of Eqs. (55) and (56) let us discuss the Canonical Ensemble, where they adopt the appearance

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{U_q}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_q}{k}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Z}_q^{1q}\beta ^{}=\beta `$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta ^{}}}\left(\mathrm{ln}_qZ_q^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`U_q,`$ (58)
where (see equation (54))

$$\mathrm{ln}_qZ_q^{}=\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q\beta ^{}U_q.$$
(59)
Proponemos que $`\beta ^{}`$ Finally, the specific heat reads

$$C_q=\frac{U_q}{T}=\frac{U_q}{\beta ^{}}\frac{d\beta ^{}}{dT}=\frac{U_q}{\beta ^{}}\frac{1}{k^{}T^2}=k^{}\beta ^2\frac{U_q}{\beta ^{}}.$$
(60)
We conclude that the mathematical form of the thermodynamic relations is indeed preserved by the present treatment. Both sets of Lagrange multipliers accomplish this feat and they are connected via (11). The primed one, however, allows for a simpler treatment, as will be illustrated below.

## V Simple applications

We consider now some illustrative examples. They are chosen in such a manner that each of them discusses a different type of situation: classical and quantal systems, the latter in the case of both finite and infinite number of levels.

### A The classical harmonic oscillator

Let us consider the classical harmonic oscillator in the canonical ensemble. We can associate with the classical oscillator a continuous energy spectrum $`ϵ(n)=ϵn`$ with $`ϵ>0`$ and $`n^+`$ compatible with the cut-off condition. The ensuing MaxEnt probabilities adopt the appearance

$$p_q(n,t^{})=\frac{\left[f_q(n,t^{})\right]^{1/(1q)}}{\overline{Z}_q(t^{})},$$
(61)
where

$$f_q(n,t^{})=1(1q)\frac{(nu_q)}{t^{}},$$
(62)
and

$$\overline{Z}_q(t^{})=_0^{n_{max}}\left[f_q(n,t^{})\right]^{1/(1q)}𝑑n,$$
(63)
with $`u_q=U_q/ϵ`$ and $`t^{}=k^{}T/ϵ`$. We have introduced also $`n_{max}`$ as the upper integration limit on account of Tsallis’ cut-off condition. One appreciates the fact that $`n_{max}\mathrm{}`$ if $`q>1`$. $`n_{max}`$ is, of course, the maximum $`n`$-value that keeps $`\left[f_q(n,t^{})\right]^{1/(1q)}>0`$ for $`q<1`$.

The normalization condition reads

$$u_q(t^{})=\frac{_0^{n_{max}}\left[p_q(n,t^{})\right]^qn𝑑n}{_0^{n_{max}}\left[p_q(n,t^{})\right]^q𝑑n},$$
(64)
or, using (61),

$$u_q(t^{})=\frac{_0^{n_{max}}\left[f_q(n,t^{})\right]^{q/(1q)}n𝑑n}{_0^{n_{max}}\left[f_q(n,t^{})\right]^{q/(1q)}𝑑n}.$$
(65)
Due to the form of $`f_q`$, equation (65) constitutes a well-defined expression. By explicitly performing the integrals for $`1<q<2`$ (for $`q2`$ the integrals diverge) we obtain

$$u_q(t^{})=\frac{t^2/(2q)(1+(1q)u_q/t^{})^{(2q)/(1q)}}{t^{}(1+(1q)u_q/t^{})^{1/(1q)}}.$$
(66)
After a little algebra, the above equation leads to the simple result

$$u_q(t^{})=t^{}.$$
(67)
Replacing now $`u_q=U_q/ϵ`$ and $`t^{}=k^{}T/ϵ`$, we obtain $`U_q=k^{}T`$, so that the specific heat reads

$$C_q=k^{}.$$
(68)
It is worthwhile to remark that, in the case of this particular example, we formally regain the usual expressions typical of the $`q=1`$ case. Due to fact that we possess a degree of freedom in the definition of $`k^{}`$, we can set $`k^{}=k_B`$ and thus recover Gibbs’ Thermodynamics. Performing the pertinent integral and using (67), the partition function becomes

$$\overline{Z}_q(t^{})=t^{}(2q)^{1/(1q)}.$$
(69)
According to equation (53), $`t^{}`$ can be written in terms of $`t`$ and $`\overline{Z}_q`$, allowing us to recover

$$\overline{Z}_q(t)=t^{1/q}(2q)^{1/[q(1q)]},$$
(70)
and, consequently,

$`u_q`$ $`=`$ $`t^{1/q}(2q)^{1/q}`$ (71)
$`C_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}(2q)^{1/q}t^{(1q)/q}.`$ (72)
These results are identical to those of , but are here derived in a remarkably simpler fashion.

### B The two-level system and the quantum harmonic oscillator

Let us consider the discrete case of a single particle with an energy spectrum given by $`E_n=ϵn`$, where $`ϵ>0`$ and $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},N`$. If $`N=1`$, we are facing the non degenerate two level system, while, if $`n\mathrm{}`$, the attendant problem is that of the quantum harmonic oscillator.

The micro-state probabilities are of the form, once again

$$p_n=\frac{f_n^{1/(1q)}}{\overline{Z}_q}$$
(73)
with

$$\overline{Z}_q=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}f_n{}_{}{}^{1/(1q)}.$$
(74)
The configurational characteristics take the form

$$f_n(t^{})=1(1q)(nu_q)/t^{}$$
(75)
where again (see (V A)), $`t^{}=k^{}T/ϵ`$ and $`u_q=U_q/k^{}`$.

Using (73), the mean energy can be written as

$$u_q=\frac{_{n=0}^Nf_n^{q/(1q)}n}{_{n=0}^Nf_n^{q/(1q)}},$$
(76)
which, using the explicit form of $`f_n`$ and rearranging terms, allows one to write down the following equation

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left[1\frac{(1q)}{t^{}}(nu_q)\right]^{q/(1q)}(nu_q)=0,$$
(77)
which implicitly defines $`u_q`$. Notice that one does not arrive to a closed expression. However, in order to numerically solve for $`u_q`$, we just face (77). This equation is easily solved by recourse to the so-called “seed” methods (cut-off always taken care of), with quick convergence (seconds). This is to be compared to the TMP instance . In their case, one faces a non-linear coupled system of equations in order to accomplish the same task. This coupled system can be recovered from (77) and (73), writing $`t^{}`$ in terms of $`t`$.

### C Magnetic Systems

Consider now a very simple magnetic model, discussed, for instance, in : a quantum system of $`N`$ spin 1/2 non-interacting atoms in the presence of a uniform, external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}=H\widehat{k}`$ (oriented along the unit vector $`\widehat{k}`$). Each atom is endowed with a magnetic moment $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mu }}^{(i)}=g\mu _0\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}^{(i)},`$ where $`\mu _0=e/(2mc)`$ is Bohr’s magneton and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}^{(i)}=(\mathrm{}/2)\widehat{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}^{(i)}`$, with $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}^{(i)}`$ standing for the Pauli matrices. The concomitant interaction energy reads

$$\widehat{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{\stackrel{}{\mu }}^{(i)}\stackrel{}{H}=\frac{g\mu _0}{\mathrm{}}H\widehat{S}_z,$$
(78)
where $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}=_{i=1}^N\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}^{(i)}`$ the total (collective) spin operator. The simultaneous eigenvectors of $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_z`$ constitute a basis of the concomitant $`2^N`$-dimensional space. We have $`|S,M`$, with $`S=\delta ,\mathrm{},N/2,`$ $`M=S,\mathrm{},S,`$ and $`\delta N/2[N/2]=0`$ $`(1/2)`$ if $`N`$ is even (odd). The corresponding multiplicities are $`Y(S,M)=Y(S)=N!(2S+1)/[(N/2S)!(N/2+S+1)!]`$ . We recast the Hamiltonian in the simple form

$$\widehat{}=\frac{x^{}}{\beta ^{}}\widehat{S}_z,$$
(79)
with $`x^{}=g\mu _0H\beta ^{}/\mathrm{}`$. Our statistical operator can be written as

$$\widehat{\rho }=\frac{1}{\overline{Z}_q}\left[1(1q)x^{}\left(\widehat{S}_z\widehat{S}_z_q\right)\right]^{1/(1q)},$$
(80)
where

$$\overline{Z}_q=Tr\left[1(1q)x^{}\left(\widehat{S}_z\widehat{S}_z_q\right)\right]^{1/(1q)}.$$
(81)
Due to the cut-off condition, $`1(1q)x^{}\left(\widehat{S}_z\widehat{S}_z_q\right)>0`$.

The mean value of the spin $`z`$-component is computed according to (27)

$$\widehat{S}_z_q=\frac{Tr\left(\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{S}_z\right)}{Tr\left(\widehat{\rho }^q\right)},$$
(82)
so that, replacing (80) into (82) and rearranging then terms we arrive at

$$Tr\left\{\left[1+(1q)x^{}\left(\widehat{S}_z\widehat{S}_z_q\right)\right]^{q/(1q)}\left(\widehat{S}_z\widehat{S}_z_q\right)\right\}=0.$$
(83)
More explicitly, one has

$$\underset{S=\delta }{\overset{N/2}{}}Y(S)\underset{M=S}{\overset{S}{}}\left[1+(1q)x^{}\left(M\widehat{S}_z_q\right)\right]^{q/(1q)}\left(M\widehat{S}_z_q\right)=0,$$
(84)
which is the equation to be solved in order to find $`\widehat{S}_z_q`$.

Notice that, once again, one faces just a single equation, that can be easily tackled. If one uses instead the TMP prescription (as discussed in ) one has to solve a coupled, highly non-linear system of equations. Such a system can be recovered from (84) if one replaces $`x^{}`$ by $`x/Tr(\rho ^q)`$ and adds the condition $`Tr(\rho ^q)`$ from (80).

As in , we consider now two asymptotic situations from the present viewpoint.

For $`x^{}0`$ we Taylor-expand (84) around $`x^{}=0`$ and find

$$\widehat{S}_z_q=\frac{qx^{}N}{4},$$
(85)
that leads to an effective particle number

$$N_{eff}^0=qN,$$
(86)
as in . Following the same mechanism and using (85), one finds that

$$Tr(\rho ^q)=2^{N(1q)}.$$
(87)
Remembering that $`x^{}=x/Tr(\rho ^q)`$, it is possible to recover the TMP normalized solution

$$\widehat{S}_z_q=\frac{qxN}{4}2^{N(q1)},$$
(88)
and

$$N_{eff}^{0^{(3)}}=qN2^{N(q1)}.$$
(89)
For $`x^{}\mathrm{},`$ and for $`0<q<1,`$ expression (84) leads to an equation identical to that of

$$\underset{S=\delta }{\overset{N/2}{}}Y(S)\underset{M=S}{\overset{S}{}}\left(M\widehat{S}_z_q\right)^{1/(1q)}=0,$$
(90)
whose solution reads $`\widehat{S}_z_q=N/2`$.

## VI Conclusions

In order to obtain the probability distribution $`p_i`$ that maximizes Tsallis’ entropy subject to appropriate constraints, Tsallis-Mendes-Plastino extremize

$`F=S_q\alpha _0\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{w}{}}}p_i1\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _j\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^wp_i^qO_j^{(i)}}{_{i=1}^wp_i^q}}O_j_q\right),`$

and obtain

$`p_i={\displaystyle \frac{f_i^{1/(1q)}}{\overline{Z}_q}},`$

where

$`f_i=1{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)_j\lambda _j\left(O_j^{(i)}O_j_q\right)}{k_jp_j^q}},`$

and $`\overline{Z}_q`$ is the partition function. Two rather unpleasant facts are thus faced, namely,

* $`p_i`$ explicitly depends upon the probability distribution (self-reference).
* The Hessian of $`F`$ is not diagonal.

In this work we have devised a transformation from the original set of Lagrange multipliers $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ to a new set $`\{\lambda _j^{}\}`$ such that

* Self-reference is avoided.
* The Hessian of $`F`$ becomes diagonal.

As a consequence, all calculations, whether analytical or numerical, become much simpler than in , as illustrated with reference to several simple examples. The primed multipliers

$`\lambda _j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{_ip_i^q}}`$

incorporate the $`p_i`$<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*that maximize the entropy in their definition. Since one solves directly for the primed multipliers, such a simple step considerably simplifies the TMP treatment. Finally, we remark on the fact that the two sets of multipliers lead to thermodynamical relationships that involve identical intensive quantities (LABEL:rel).

###### Acknowledgements.

The financial support of the National Research Council (CONICET) of Argentina is gratefully acknowledged. F. Pennini acknowledges financial support from UNLP, Argentina.