text:
# Weighted kneading theory of unidimensional maps with holes

## 1. Introduction

Let $`I`$ be a compact interval and $`f=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ be an iterated function system (IFS), a collection of self-maps on $`I`$, defined by

$$f_i\left(x\right):=\rho _ix+\varrho _i,i=1,\mathrm{},n$$

where for all $`i`$, $`0<\left|\rho _i\right|<1`$ and $`\varrho _i`$. Let $`E`$ be the corresponding self-similar set, the attractor. We consider an IFS where the open set condition is satisfied, \[F\]. If $`f_i`$ is monotone then is usual to see $`E`$ as the repeller of a linear expanding map $`F:_{i=1}^nf_i\left(I\right)I`$, which will be denoted by $`F=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_n),`$ where

$$F_i\left(x\right):=f_i^1\left(x\right)\text{ if }xf_i\left(I\right).$$

We consider the piecewise linear map $`F`$ with a single hole, i.e., there is an open subinterval $`I_hI`$ with $`I_h\mathrm{}`$ such that $`I`$ is the disjoint union of $`I_h`$ and $`_{i=1}^n\mathrm{I}m\left(f_i\right)`$, (\[LS2\] and \[LS3\]). The points $`xI_h`$ will be mapped out of $`I`$ and the same will happen to all the points $`xF^k(I_h)`$ for $`k1`$. The set $`_kF^k(I_h)`$ is open and dense in $`I`$ and has full Lebesgue measure, \[BC\].

The hole and the set of $`n`$ laps of $`F`$ determines a partition $`𝒫_I:=\{I_1,\mathrm{},I_h,\mathrm{},I_n\}`$ of the interval $`I`$. Considering the orbits of the lateral limit points of the discontinuity points and turning points, we define a Markov partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$ of $`I`$.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we develop a weighted kneading theory to expanding discontinuous maps with holes. In this section we give a brief presentation of the kneading theory associated to $`F`$. For more details see \[MT\] and for maps of the interval with holes see \[LS1\]. The new kneading approach using weights is inspired on \[LS3\], where we compute explicitly the escape rate that is characterized by a conditional invariant measure. The weights introduced in the kneading theory are defined by the inverses of the derivatives of the iterates of the discontinuity points and turning points of $`F`$, associated to a real parameter $`\beta `$. We consider the transfer or Perron-Frobenius operator $`L_\varphi `$ associated to the map $`F`$ and to the Markov partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$. The transfer operator has a matrix representation, which we will denote by $`Q_\beta `$. This matrix can be viewed as the matrix of $`L_\varphi `$ acting on a finite dimensional vector space of functions.

It is known that the spectrum of the transfer operator determines the ergodicity of the dynamical system. In section 3, we will give an algorithm to compute this spectrum and to relate the transfer operator with the weighted kneading determinant, Theorem 2. To establish this relation we introduce a weighted matrix $`V_\beta `$ and we use complexes and homology with weights, Theorem 1. These results allow us to compute explicitly the Hausdorff dimension, the escape rate and the topological entropy, Theorem 3.

We remark that, we can obtain the same results for a finite union of disjoint holes $`I_{h_j}I`$.

## 2. Weighted kneading theory and subshifts of finite type

Let $`a_i`$, with $`i=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$, be the extreme points of the intervals in the partition $`𝒫_I`$. These points correspond to the discontinuity points and the turning points of the map $`F`$. We denote the hole by $`I_h=(a_h,a_{h+1})`$. Set

$$\begin{array}{c}\{a_1^+,a_2^{},a_2^+,\mathrm{},a_h^{},a_h^+,a_{h+1}^{},a_{h+1}^+,\mathrm{},a_{n+1}^{}\}\hfill \\ \\ =\{x^{\left(1\right)},x^{\left(2\right)},x^{\left(3\right)},\mathrm{},x^{\left(2h2\right)},x^{\left(2h1\right)},x^{\left(2\left(h+1\right)2\right)},x^{\left(2\left(h+1\right)1\right)},\mathrm{},x^{\left(2n\right)}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The orbit of each point $`x^{\left(j\right)},`$ with $`j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}h2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(h+1\right)1,`$ $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n`$, is defined by

$$o\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right):=\{x_k^{\left(j\right)}:x_k^{\left(j\right)}=F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right),k_0\}\text{.}$$

Concerning the itinerary of each point $`x^{\left(j\right)}`$ we will have

$$F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)=x_k^{\left(j\right)}\text{ or }F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)int(I_h).$$

In the first case, we have periodic, eventually periodic or aperiodic orbits. While in the second, after a finite number of iterates, the itinerary of the points lie in the hole.

To simplify the presentation, we consider the points $`x^{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`x^{\left(2n\right)}`$ as fixed points. To the orbit of each point $`x^{\left(j\right)},`$ with $`j=2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}h2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(h+1\right)1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n1,`$ we associate a sequence of symbols $`S^{\left(j\right)}`$ given by

$$S^{\left(j\right)}:=S_0^{\left(j\right)}S_1^{\left(j\right)}\mathrm{}S_k^{\left(j\right)}\mathrm{}$$

where

$$S_k^{\left(j\right)}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}L\hfill & \text{if }F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)I_1\hfill \\ & \\ M_{s_1}\hfill & \text{if }F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)I_{s_1+1},s_1\{1,\mathrm{},h2\}\hfill \\ & \\ H\hfill & \text{if }F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)I_h\hfill \\ & \\ M_{s_2}\hfill & \text{if }F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)I_{s_2+1},\text{ }s_2\{h1,\mathrm{},n2\}\hfill \\ & \\ R\hfill & \text{if }F^k\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)I_n.\hfill \end{array}$$

We denote by $`𝒜`$ the ordered set of $`n+1`$ symbols, corresponding to the laps and the hole of $`F`$, i.e.,

$$𝒜=\{L,M_1,\mathrm{},M_{h2},H,M_{h1},\mathrm{},M_{n2},R\}$$

and according to the real line order

$$LM_1\mathrm{}M_{h2}HM_{h1}\mathrm{}M_{n2}R.$$

We designate by $`𝒜^{}`$ the space of all sequences of symbols on the alphabet $`𝒜`$.

###### Definition 1.

The kneading data for the map $`F`$ is the $`(2n4)`$-tuple of symbolic sequences

$$(S^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},S^{(2h2)},S^{\left(2\left(h+1\right)1\right)},\mathrm{},S^{(2n1)})𝒜^{}\times 𝒜^{}\times \mathrm{}\times 𝒜^{}.$$

The kneading increments introduced in \[MT\] are defined by formal power series with coefficients in $`\left[\left[t\right]\right]`$, the subring of the ring $`\left[\left[t\right]\right]`$. For maps of the interval with holes and more than one discontinuity point and turning points, we have several kneading increments, whose number depends on the number of discontinuity points and turning points of the map $`F`$, \[LS1\]. The kneading increments are defined by

$$\nu _{a_i}\left(t\right):=\theta _{a_i^+}\left(t\right)\theta _{a_i^{}}\left(t\right).$$

In the case where $`a_i`$ is an extreme point of the hole $`I_h`$, the increments are defined by

$$\nu _{a_h}\left(t\right):=\theta _{a_h^{}}\left(t\right)\text{ and }\nu _{a_{h+1}}\left(t\right):=\theta _{a_{h+1}^+}\left(t\right)$$

where $`\theta _{a_i}\left(t\right)`$ is the invariant coordinate of each symbolic sequence associated to the itinerary of each point $`a_i`$, with $`1<i<n+1`$. Each lateral invariant coordinate is defined by

$$\theta _{a_i^\pm }\left(t\right):=\underset{xa_i^\pm }{lim}\theta _x\left(t\right)=\underset{xa_i^\pm }{lim}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau _kt^kS_k^{\left(j\right)}$$

where $`\tau _0:=1`$, $`\tau _k:=_{l=0}^{k1}\epsilon \left(S_l^{\left(j\right)}\right)`$, $`k>0`$ with

$$\epsilon \left(S_l^{\left(j\right)}\right):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ }1\hfill & \text{if }F^{}\left(F^l\left(a_i^\pm \right)\right)>0\hfill \\ & \\ \text{ }0\hfill & \text{if }F^{}\left(F^l\left(a_i^\pm \right)\right)I_h\hfill \\ & \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }F^{}\left(F^l\left(a_i^\pm \right)\right)<0\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`S_k^{\left(j\right)}`$ is the sequence of symbols corresponding to the orbits of $`a_i^\pm `$.

The increments $`\nu _{a_i}\left(t\right)`$, with $`1<i<n+1`$, can also be written in the following way

$$\nu _{a_i}\left(t\right)=N_{i1}\left(t\right)L+N_{i2}\left(t\right)M_1+\mathrm{}+N_{i(n1)}\left(t\right)M_{n2}+N_{in}\left(t\right)R$$

where the coefficients $`N_{ij}\left(t\right)\left[\left[t\right]\right]`$ are the entries of a $`n\times n`$ matrix $`N=\left[N_{ij}\left(t\right)\right]`$. This matrix is called the kneading matrix associated to the map $`F`$. The kneading determinant is denoted by $`D\left(t\right)`$.

Now we are going to present the main definition of this paper, that is the characterization of the weighted invariant coordinates. This definition allows us to construct a weighted kneading theory similar to the previous one.

###### Definition 2.

For the kneading data of the map $`F`$ the weighted invariant coordinate of each point $`a_i`$, with $`1<i<n+1`$ and $`\beta `$, is defined by

$$\theta _{a_i^\pm }(t,\beta ):=\underset{xa_i^\pm }{lim}\theta _x(t,\beta )=\underset{xa_i^\pm }{lim}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau _k\left(a_i^\pm \right)t^kS_k^{\left(j\right)}$$

where $`\tau _0\left(a_i^\pm \right):=1`$ and for $`k>0`$

$$\tau _k\left(a_i^\pm \right):=\underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\epsilon \left(S_l^{\left(j\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(F^l\left(a_i^\pm \right)\right)\right|^\beta .$$

Note that, the derivative of the map $`F`$ satisfies the condition $`inf\left|F_i^{}\left(x\right)\right|>1`$, on each interval $`f_i\left(I\right)`$. For each point $`a_i`$, with $`i=1,\mathrm{},h1,h+2,\mathrm{},n+1`$, the weighted kneading increment is defined by

$$\nu _{a_i}(t,\beta ):=\theta _{a_i^+}(t,\beta )\theta _{a_i^{}}(t,\beta ).$$

For the extreme points of the hole $`I_h`$, the weighted increments are defined by

$$\nu _{a_h}(t,\beta ):=\theta _{a_h^{}}(t,\beta )\text{ and }\nu _{a_{h+1}}(t,\beta ):=\theta _{a_{h+1}^+}(t,\beta ).$$

Separating the terms associated to the symbols on the alphabet $`𝒜`$, the weighted increments $`\nu _{a_i}(t,\beta )`$ are written in the following way

$$\nu _{a_i}(t,\beta )=N_{i1}(t,\beta )L+N_{i2}(t,\beta )M_1+\mathrm{}+N_{i(n1)}(t,\beta )M_{n2}+N_{in}(t,\beta )R.$$

The coefficients $`N_{ij}(t,\beta )\left[[t,\beta ]\right]`$ are the entries of a $`n\times n`$ matrix

$$N(t,\beta ):=\left[N_{ij}(t,\beta )\right]$$

which we will call the weighted kneading matrix associated to $`F`$. The determinant of this matrix will be called the weighted kneading determinant and will be denoted by $`D(t,\beta )`$.

###### Remark 1.

To an eventually periodic orbit of a point $`x^{\left(j\right)}`$ represented by

$$S_0^{\left(j\right)}\mathrm{}S_{p1}^{\left(j\right)}\left(S_p^{\left(j\right)}\mathrm{}S_{p+q1}^{\left(j\right)}\right)^{\mathrm{}}$$

it corresponds the weighted cyclotomic polynomial

$$1\underset{l=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\epsilon \left(S_{p+l}^{\left(j\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(F^{p+l}\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)\right)\right|^\beta t^q$$

where $`q`$ is the period of the orbit. If the orbit is periodic then the weighted cyclotomic polynomial is

$$1\tau _q\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right)t^q.$$

Now, let

$$\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_{m+1}\}:=\{o\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right):j=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}h2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(h+1\right)1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n\}$$

be the set of the points correspondent to the orbits of the lateral limit points of the discontinuity points and turning points, ordered on the interval $`I`$. This set allows us to define a subpartition $`𝒫_I^{}`$ of $`𝒫_I=\{I_1,\mathrm{},I_h,\mathrm{},I_n\}.`$ The subpartition

$$𝒫_I^{}:=\{J_1,\mathrm{},J_m\}$$

with $`mn`$ determines a Markov partition of the interval $`I`$. Note that the hole is an element of the Markov partition. Note also that $`F`$ determines $`𝒫_I^{}`$ uniquely, but the converse is not true.

The IFS $`f`$ induces a subshift of finite type whose $`m\times m`$ transition matrix $`A=[a_{ij}]`$ is defined by

$$a_{ij}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }F\left(intJ_j\right)intJ_i\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

We remark that if there exists $`k`$ points $`b_i`$ such that $`b_iintI_h`$, with $`1<i<m+1`$, then the matrix $`A`$ has $`k+1`$ columns with all elements equal to zero, correspondent to the hole.

We denote this subshift by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_A,\sigma )`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the shift map on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^{}`$ defined by $`\sigma \left(x_1x_2\mathrm{}\right):=x_2x_3\mathrm{}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m:=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ correspondent to the $`m`$ states of the subshift. Concerning this subshift $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_A,\sigma )`$ and the associated Markov partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$, we consider a Lipschitz function $`\varphi :I`$, defined by

$$\varphi :=\{\varphi _i:J_i,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}im\}$$

where

$$\varphi _i\left(x\right):=\beta \text{ }\phi _i\left(x\right)\text{ and }\phi _i\left(x\right):=\mathrm{log}\left|F_i^{}\left(x\right)\right|\text{, with }\beta .$$

This function is a weight for the dynamical system associated to the subshift, depending on the real parameter $`\beta `$ (compare with \[R1\]).

Let $`^1\left(I\right)`$ be the set of all Lebesgue integrable functions on $`I`$. The transfer operator $`L_\varphi :^1\left(I\right)^1\left(I\right)`$, associated with $`F`$ and $`𝒫_I`$, is defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(L_\varphi g\right)\left(x\right)\hfill & :=\hfill & \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{exp}\varphi \left(F_j^1\left(x\right)\right)\text{ }g\left(F_j^1\left(x\right)\right)\chi _{F\left(intI_j\right)}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \underset{y:Fy=x}{}\mathrm{exp}\varphi \left(y\right)\text{ }g\left(y\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\chi _{I_j}`$ is the characteristic function of $`I_j`$. Note that, by definition of $`F`$, $`F_j^1\left(x\right)=f_j\left(x\right)`$ with $`xF\left(I_j\right)`$. Note also that, for any Borel subset $`JI,`$ we have

$$F^1\left(J\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_j\left(F\left(I_j\right)J\right)$$

where the sets $`\left\{f_j\left(F\left(I_j\right)J\right)\right\}_{j=1}^n`$ are mutually disjoint. Depending on $`J`$, the set $`f_j\left(F\left(I_j\right)J\right)`$ can be empty.

Now, we will restrict our attention to the transfer operator associated with $`F`$ and to the Markov partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$. Given $`J_i𝒫_I^{}`$, let $`Y_{1i},\mathrm{},Y_{ki}`$ be the preimages of $`J_i`$ under $`F`$, i.e.,

$$F_j\left(intY_{ji}\right)=intJ_i\text{ with }1jk\text{ and }km.$$

Then, we can define continuous maps $`f_j|{}_{J_i}{}^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}:J_iY_{ji}`$, that correspond to the IFS $`f`$ restricted to the interval $`J_i`$, such that $`y_j=\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}\left(x\right)`$ are the preimages of $`xJ_i`$. Thus, for each $`xJ_i`$ we have

(2.1)
$$\left(L_{\varphi _j}g\right)\left(x\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{exp}\varphi _j\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}\left(x\right)\right)\text{ }g\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}\left(x\right)\right)\delta \left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}\left(x\right)\right)$$

where

$$\delta \left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}\left(x\right)\right):=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Psi }_{ji}\left(x\right)=y_j\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Nevertheless, for each interval $`J_j𝒫_I^{}`$ we consider

$$f_j\left(x\right):=F^1|{}_{J_j}{}^{}\left(x\right)\text{ for }xF\left(intJ_j\right)=\underset{a_{ij}0}{}intJ_i$$

where $`a_{ij}`$ are the entries of the transition matrix $`A,`$ with $`1i,jm.`$ By formula (2.1), we can write

(2.2)
$$\left(L_{\varphi _j}g\right)\left(x\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{exp}\varphi _j\left(f_j\left(x\right)\right)\text{ }g\left(f_j\left(x\right)\right)\chi _{F\left(intJ_j\right)}.$$

In this paper we consider a class of one-dimensional transformations that are piecewise linear Markov transformations. Consequently, the transfer operator has the following matrix representation. Let $`𝒞`$ be the class of all functions that are piecewise constant on the partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$. Thus,

$$g𝒞\text{ iff }g=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\pi _j\chi _{J_j}$$

for some constants $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _m`$. We remark that $`g`$ will also be represented by the column vector $`\pi _g=(\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _m)^T`$. Using the formula (2.2) and considering $`g𝒞`$ with $`g=\chi _{J_k}`$, for some $`1km`$, the transfer operator $`L_\varphi `$ has the following matrix characterization

$$L_\varphi g=Q_\beta \pi _g$$

for the weighted dynamical system associated to $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_A,\sigma )`$. If $`D_\beta `$ is the diagonal matrix defined by

$$D_\beta :=(\mathrm{exp}\phi _1^\beta ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{exp}\phi _m^\beta )$$

and $`A`$ is the transition matrix, then the matrix $`Q_\beta `$ is the $`m\times m`$ weighted transition matrix defined by

$$Q_\beta :=AD_\beta =[q_{ij}].$$

The entries of this matrix are

$$q_{ij}:=\frac{a_{ij}}{\left|F_j^{}\right|^\beta }$$

where the derivative $`F_j^{}`$ is evaluated on the interval $`J_j`$ of the partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$. We refer to \[R2\], \[BG\] and the references therein to other important spectral properties of the transfer operator, and \[F\] for this operator with respect to the cookie-cutter system. In \[LS3\], we use the matrix $`Q_\beta `$ with $`\beta =1`$ to compute the escape rate and the conditional invariant measure which generates the unique invariant probability measure.

There is an isomorphism between $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_A,\sigma )`$ and $`(𝒫_I^{},F)`$, \[W\]. If $`w=\left(i_0i_1\mathrm{}\right)`$ and $`w^{}=\left(i_0^{}i_1^{}\mathrm{}\right)`$ are two points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_A`$, then we consider the Markov partition defined by $`𝒫_I^{}:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_A/`$ where $`ww^{}`$ if and only if $`i_0=i_0^{}`$. Using this isomorphism, we consider the trace of the transfer operator defined by

$$TrL_\varphi :=\underset{x\text{Fix}(F)}{}\mathrm{exp}\varphi \left(x\right)$$

where Fix$`(F)`$ denotes the set of fixed points of $`F.`$ We consider the pressure function of $`\varphi \left(x\right)=\mathrm{log}\left|F^{}\left(x\right)\right|^\beta `$ as $`\beta `$ varies, $`P\left(\beta \right)`$, defined by

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}P\left(\beta \right)\hfill & :=\hfill & \underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{log}\underset{x\text{Fix}(F^k)}{}\left|\left(F^k\right)^{}\left(x\right)\right|^\beta \hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{log}\left(TrQ_\beta ^k\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \mathrm{log}\left(\lambda _\beta \right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where Fix$`(F^k)`$ denotes the set of fixed points of $`F^k`$, (\[F\], \[W\] and \[R3\]). Thus, $`\mathrm{exp}P\left(\beta \right)`$ is the largest eigenvalue $`\lambda _\beta `$ of the transfer operator $`L_\varphi `$, which is equal to the spectral radius of the matrix $`Q_\beta `$, \[R2\]. Nevertheless, it is known that the pressure can be characterized by the variational principle

$$P\left(\beta \right)=h_{\mu _\beta }\left(F\right)\beta \chi _{\mu _\beta }\left(F\right)$$

as the supremum over all invariant probability measures on $`E`$. In this case, the supremum is attained by the weighted Markov measure $`\mu _\beta `$, i.e., the measure $`\mu _\beta `$ is the unique measure that maximizes this expression. See \[LS3\] for the definition of $`\mu _\beta `$, the weighted metric entropy $`h_{\mu _\beta }\left(F\right)`$ and the weighted Lyapunov exponent $`\chi _{\mu _\beta }\left(F\right)`$ with respect to this measure.

We remark that the weighted zeta function for a weighted subshift of finite type is given by

$$\zeta (t,\beta )=\frac{1}{det\left(ItQ_\beta \right)}.$$

For more discussions about the zeta function for a subshift of finite type without weights see \[BL\], and for another approach with weights see \[M\] and \[BR\].

## 3. Complexes and homology with weights

As above described, on the set $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_{m+1}\}`$ there exist $`2n2`$ points

(3.1)
$$\{x^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},x^{\left(2h2\right)},x^{\left(2h+1\right)},\mathrm{},x^{\left(2n\right)}\}.$$

Concerning the set of points $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n+1}\}`$, we consider the respective $`2n2`$ lateral points, as in section 2. Let $`p`$ be the number of points $`b_i`$ outside of (3.1). We denote this set by $`𝒢`$. Set $`2n+p2=q`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\{a_1^+,a_2^{},a_2^+,\mathrm{},a_h^{},a_h^+,a_{h+1}^{},a_{h+1}^+,\mathrm{},a_{n+1}^{}\}𝒢\hfill \\ \\ =\{o\left(x^{\left(j\right)}\right):j=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}h2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(h+1\right)1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n\}\{x^{\left(2h1\right)},x^{\left(2(h+1)2\right)}\}\hfill \\ \\ =\{x^{\left(1\right)},x_1^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},x_{k_1}^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},x^{\left(2n\right)},x_1^{\left(2n\right)},\mathrm{},x_{k_{2n}}^{\left(2n\right)}\}\{x^{\left(2h1\right)},x^{\left(2(h+1)2\right)}\}\hfill \\ \\ =\{z^{\left(1\right)},z^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},z^{\left(q2\right)},x^{\left(2h1\right)},x^{\left(2(h+1)2\right)}\}\hfill \\ \\ =\{z^{\left(1\right)},z^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},z^{\left(q\right)}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We denote by $`\{y^{\left(1\right)},y^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(q\right)}\}`$ the above set of points now ordered on the interval $`I`$. On the set $`\{y^{\left(1\right)},y^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(q\right)}\}`$ there exist pairs of consecutive points $`y^{\left(k\right)},y^{\left(k+1\right)}`$, with $`2kq2`$, correspondent to some $`a_i^\pm `$ with $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. According to the above conditions, we define a permutation $`\rho `$ by

$$(z^{\left(1\right)},z^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},z^{\left(q\right)})(z^{\rho \left(1\right)},z^{\rho \left(2\right)},\mathrm{},z^{\rho \left(q\right)})=(y^{\left(1\right)},y^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(q\right)}).$$

Let $`C_0`$ be the vector space of $`0`$-chains spanned by the points $`y^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(q\right)}`$ and $`C_1`$ be the vector space of $`1`$-chains spanned by the intervals of the partition $`𝒫_I^{}`$. The border map $`:C_1C_0`$ is defined by

$$\left(J_j\right):=y^{\left(i+1\right)}y^{\left(i\right)}$$

with $`1jm`$ and $`1iq1.`$ We designate by $`B=\left[b_{ij}\right]`$ the $`q\times m`$ incidence matrix of the graph defined by $`(C_0,C_1,)`$, i.e., if $`y^{\left(i\right)}`$ is the lower extreme point and $`y^{\left(i+1\right)}`$ is the upper extreme point of the interval $`J_j`$ then $`b_{ij}:=1`$ and $`b_{i+1,j}:=1`$, the remaining entries are zero.

Let $`\eta :C_0C_0`$ be the map that describes the transition between the points $`y^{\left(1\right)},y^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(q\right)}`$ and checks the existence of turning points and discontinuity points between $`y^{\left(j\right)}`$ and $`F\left(y^{\left(j\right)}\right)`$, with $`1jq`$. This map is represented by the following weighted matrix $`V_\beta `$.

###### Definition 3.

The $`q\times q`$ weighted matrix $`V_\beta =\left[v_{ij}\right]`$, associated to the map $`F`$, is defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}v_{ij}:=\epsilon \left(y^{\left(j\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(j\right)}\right)\right|^\beta \hfill & \text{if }F\left(y^{\left(j\right)}\right)=y^{\left(i\right)}\text{, where }\epsilon \left(y^{\left(j\right)}\right)=sign\left(F^{}\left(y^{\left(j\right)}\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \\ v_{kj}:=v_{ij},v_{k+1,j}:=v_{ij}\hfill & \text{if }y^{\left(i\right)}>y^{\left(j\right)}\text{ and }jk<i\hfill \\ & \\ v_{k1,j}:=v_{ij},v_{k,j}:=v_{ij}\hfill & \text{if }y^{\left(i\right)}<y^{\left(j\right)}\text{ and }i<kj\hfill \end{array}$$

where the pairs of consecutive points $`y^{\left(k\right)},y^{\left(k+1\right)}`$ with $`jk<i`$ (resp. $`y^{\left(k1\right)},y^{\left(k\right)}`$ with $`i<kj`$) are associated to the turning points and discontinuity points of $`F`$ with $`y^{\left(j\right)}y^{\left(k\right)},y^{\left(k+1\right)}y^{\left(i\right)}`$ (resp. $`y^{\left(i\right)}y^{\left(k1\right)},y^{\left(k\right)}y^{\left(j\right)}`$). All the remaining entries in $`V_\beta `$ are zero.

We consider that the points $`y^{\left(i\right)}`$, with $`1iq`$, are represented by $`y^{\left(i\right)}=(0,\mathrm{},0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)^T`$, where $`1`$ is in the $`i^{\text{th}}`$-position. The above weighted matrices are related by the next result.

###### Lemma 1.

The next diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & B& & \\ & C_1& & C_0& \\ Q_\beta & & & & V_\beta \\ & C_1& & C_0& \\ & & B& & \end{array}.$$

###### Proof.

Let the intervals $`J_j`$, with $`1jm`$, be represented by the column vector $`J_j=(0,\mathrm{},0,\chi _{J_j},0,\mathrm{},0)^T`$, where $`\chi _{J_j}`$ is in the $`j^{\text{th}}`$-position, i.e., as a function in $`𝒞`$. Then, one has

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(BQ_\beta \right)\left(J_j\right)\hfill & =\hfill & \left(BAD_\beta \right)\left(J_j\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \left(BA\right)\left(e^{\phi _j^\beta }J_j\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & B\left(\underset{a_{kj}0}{}\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta J_k\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \underset{a_{kj}0}{}\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta B\left(J_k\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \underset{u_{lj}0}{}\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta \left(y^{\left(l+1\right)}y^{\left(l\right)}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`u_{lj}`$ are the nonzero elements of the $`j^{\text{th}}`$ column of the matrix $`BA`$. The above equalities make a description of the transition of the interval $`J_j`$ by the border of the intervals $`J_k`$ such that $`F\left(intJ_j\right)intJ_k`$, weighted by $`\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta `$.

On the other hand, we have

$$V_\beta B\left(J_j\right)=V_\beta \left(y^{\left(i+1\right)}y^{\left(i\right)}\right)=V_\beta \left(y^{\left(i+1\right)}\right)V_\beta \left(y^{\left(i\right)}\right).$$

Consider that $`y^{\left(i\right)}`$ is a point associated to a turning point or to a discontinuity point of $`F`$ and $`F\left(y^{\left(i\right)}\right)=y^{\left(s\right)}`$, with $`s<i`$. Consequently,

$$v_{si}=\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i\right)}\right)\right|^\beta ,v_{i1,i}=v_{si}\text{ and }v_{ii}=v_{si}.$$

If there exist $`z_1`$ turning points or discontinuity points between $`y^{\left(s\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(i1\right)}`$, then we have pairs of consecutive points $`y^{\left(k_l1\right)},y^{\left(k_l\right)}`$, with $`s<k_l1,k_l<i1`$ and $`1lz_1`$, such that

$$v_{k_l1,i}=v_{si}\text{ and }v_{k_li}=v_{si}.$$

Suppose that $`y^{\left(i+1\right)}intI_p`$ with $`1pn`$, i.e., $`y^{\left(i+1\right)}𝒢`$ and $`F\left(y^{\left(i+1\right)}\right)=y^{\left(r\right)}`$, with $`r>i+1.`$ In this case, we have

$$v_{i+1,i+1}=0\text{ and }v_{r,i+1}=\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i+1\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i+1\right)}\right)\right|^\beta .$$

Similarly, if there exists $`z_2`$ turning points or discontinuity points between $`y^{\left(i+1\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(r\right)}`$, then we have pairs of points $`y^{\left(k_w\right)},y^{\left(k_w+1\right)}`$, with $`i+1<k_w,k_w+1<r`$ and $`1wz_2`$ such that

$$v_{k_wi}=v_{r,i+1}\text{ and }v_{k_w+1,i}=v_{r,i+1}.$$

As the weight is constant on each interval $`J_j`$, we get

$$V_\beta \left(y^{\left(i+1\right)}\right)V_\beta \left(y^{\left(i\right)}\right)=\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta \underset{l=s}{\overset{r1}{}}\left(y^{\left(l+1\right)}y^{\left(l\right)}\right)$$

where the pairs of points $`y^{\left(l\right)},y^{\left(l+1\right)}`$ lie in the set

$$\{y^{\left(s\right)},y^{\left(s+1\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(k_l\right)},y^{\left(k_l+1\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(i1\right)},y^{\left(i\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(k_w\right)},y^{\left(k_w+1\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(r1\right)},y^{\left(r\right)}\}$$

and describe the border of the intervals $`J_k`$ such that $`F\left(intJ_j\right)intJ_k`$. From this it follows that

$$\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta \underset{l=s}{\overset{r1}{}}\left(y^{\left(l+1\right)}y^{\left(l\right)}\right)=\underset{a_{kj}0}{}\left|F^{}\left(J_j\right)\right|^\beta B\left(J_k\right).$$

The proof of the remaining cases is similar, according to the behavior of $`F`$ and the above definition.

Let $`H_0:=C_0/B_0`$, where $`B_0=\left(C_1\right)`$ is a subspace of $`C_0`$. Note that two consecutive laps without a discontinuity point between them are considered as two connected components. The map $`\zeta :C_0H_0`$ associates to each point $`y^{\left(i\right)}`$, with $`1iq`$, the respective interval $`I_j`$, with $`1jn`$. This map is represented by the $`q\times n`$ matrix $`U=\left[u_{ij}\right]`$, where $`u_{ij}:=1`$ if the point $`y^{\left(i\right)}`$ lies in $`I_j`$ and all the remaining entries of the matrix are zero.

###### Lemma 2.

If $`y^{\left(i_1\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(i_2\right)}`$ are two points on the interval $`I_j`$ with $`1jn`$, then we have

$$UV_\beta \left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)^T=UV_\beta \left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)^T.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`y^{\left(i_1\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(i_2\right)}`$ be two points on $`I_j`$. Consider that,

$$B\left(J_k\right)=y^{\left(i_2\right)}y^{\left(i_1\right)},intJ_kintI_j,F\left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)I_j^{}\text{ and }F\left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)I_{j^{\prime \prime }}$$

with $`1km`$ and $`j^{}<j<j^{\prime \prime }`$. If the points $`y^{\left(i_1\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(i_2\right)}`$ have the same behavior under $`F`$ as $`y^{\left(i\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(i+1\right)}`$ in the proof of the above proposition, respectively, then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}UV_\beta \left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)^T\hfill & =\hfill & U(0,\mathrm{},0,v_{si_1},\mathrm{},v_{k_l1,i_1},v_{k_li_1},\mathrm{},v_{i_11,i_1},v_{i_1i_1},0,\mathrm{},0)^T\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & U\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)\right|^\beta (0,\mathrm{},0,1,\mathrm{},1,1,\mathrm{},1,1,0,\mathrm{},0)^T.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that there exist $`z_1`$ pairs of consecutive points $`y^{\left(k_l1\right)},y^{\left(k_l\right)}`$ between $`y^{\left(s\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(i_11\right)},`$ with $`1lz_1.`$ These points define the border of the $`p`$ intervals $`I_{j_t}`$, with $`j^{}<j_t<j`$ and $`1tp`$. This implies that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B\left(I_j^{}\right)\hfill & =\hfill & y^{\left(k_11\right)}y^{\left(s\right)}\hfill \\ & & \\ B\left(I_{j_1}\right)\hfill & =\hfill & y^{\left(k_21\right)}y^{\left(k_1\right)}\hfill \\ \text{ }\mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ B\left(I_j\right)\hfill & =\hfill & y^{\left(i_1\right)}y^{\left(i_11\right)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, by definition of $`U`$ we get

$$UV_\beta \left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)^T=(0,\mathrm{},0,\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)\right|^\beta ,0,\mathrm{},0)^T$$

where $`\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i_1\right)}\right)\right|^\beta `$ is in the $`j^{\text{th}}`$-position.

On the other hand, considering the point $`y^{\left(i_2\right)}`$ we can write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}UV_\beta \left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)^T\hfill & =\hfill & U(0,\mathrm{},0,v_{k_wi_2},v_{k_w+1,i_2},\mathrm{},v_{ri_2},0,\mathrm{},0)^T\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & U\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta (0,\mathrm{},0,1,1,\mathrm{},1,0,\mathrm{},0)^T\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that there exist $`z_2`$ pairs of consecutive points $`y^{\left(k_w\right)},y^{\left(k_w+1\right)\text{ }}`$between $`y^{\left(i_2\right)}`$ and $`y^{\left(r\right)}`$, with $`1wz_2`$. Similarly and by definition of $`U`$ we verify that

$$UV_\beta \left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)^T=(0,\mathrm{},0,\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta ,0,\mathrm{},0)^T$$

where $`\epsilon \left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(y^{\left(i_2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta `$ is in the $`j^{\text{th}}`$-position. As the weight is constant on each interval $`I_j`$, the desired result follows. Nevertheless, according to the behavior of $`F`$ several different cases may occur. The proof of the remaining cases is very similar to the previous one.

The above lemma suggest the next definition and result. Associated to each matrix $`V_\beta `$ we have only one map $`\xi :H_0H_0`$, which reflects the monotonicity of $`F`$. The map $`\xi `$ is represented by the $`n\times n`$ weighted diagonal matrix $`K_\beta =\left[k_{ij}\right]`$, where

$$k_{ii}:=\epsilon \left(I_i\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_i\right)\right|^\beta $$

with $`\epsilon \left(I_i\right)=sign\left(F^{}\left(x\right)\right)`$, $`xI_i`$.

###### Lemma 3.

The next diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & U& & \\ & C_0& & H_0& \\ V_\beta & & & & K_\beta \\ & C_0& & H_0& \\ & & U& & \end{array}.$$

The main results can now be stated. The next theorems establish the relation between the weighted transition matrix, the weighted matrix $`V_\beta `$ and the weighted kneading determinant.

###### Theorem 1.

Under the conditions of the previous lemmas, we have the following relation between the characteristic polynomials of the matrices $`Q_\beta ,V_\beta `$ and $`K_\beta `$

$$P_{V_\beta }\left(t\right)=det\left(ItV_\beta \right)=P_{Q_\beta }\left(t\right)P_{K_\beta }\left(t\right).$$

###### Proof.

The statement is a consequence of the above lemmas and according to some homological algebra results, \[L\].

We define a permutation matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ associated to the permutation $`\rho `$ above defined, that maps the system of vectors $`(z^{\left(1\right)},z^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},z^{\left(q\right)})`$ in to the system of vectors $`(y^{\left(1\right)},y^{\left(2\right)},\mathrm{},y^{\left(q\right)})`$. Using the weighted matrix $`V_\beta `$ and the permutation matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, we define a new weighted matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$ through the next equality

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta :=\mathrm{\Pi }V_\beta \mathrm{\Pi }^T.$$

The matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is invertible, consequently we have $`P_{\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta }\left(t\right)=P_{V_\beta }\left(t\right)`$.

###### Theorem 2.

If the kneading data associated to an expanding discontinuous map with holes $`F`$ corresponds to periodic, eventually periodic orbits or to orbits that lie in the hole then the weighted kneading determinant is given by

$$D(t,\beta )=\frac{P_{Q_\beta }\left(t\right)}{R\left(t\right)}$$

where $`R\left(t\right)`$ is a product of weighted cyclotomic polynomials correspondent to those periodic or eventually periodic orbits.

It is obvious that this statement strongly depends on the number of laps and the kneading data associated to $`F`$. For this reason, the analysis of the general situation is difficult. We will prove the statement for a map $`F=(F_1,F_2)`$. The general case follows in a similar way.

###### Proof.

Consider $`F=(F_1,F_2)`$, $`𝒫_I=\{I_1,I_2,I_3\}`$ where $`I_2`$ is the hole, $`F_1\left(a_2\right)=1,F_2\left(a_3\right)=0`$ and $`𝒜=\{L,H,R\}`$. The orbits of the points $`a_1^+`$ and $`a_4^{}`$ can be periodic, eventually periodic or lie in the hole. We consider that the kneading data associated to this map is given by

$$(o\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right),o\left(x^{\left(5\right)}\right))=(\left(LS_1^{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{}S_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)^{\mathrm{}},\left(MS_1^{\left(5\right)}\mathrm{}S_{q1}^{\left(5\right)}\right)^{\mathrm{}}),$$

where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the periods of the orbits. The weighted kneading increments are

$$\nu _{a_2}(t,\beta )=\theta _{a_2^{}}(t,\beta )\text{ and }\nu _{a_3}(t,\beta )=\theta _{a_3^+}(t,\beta )$$

where

$$\theta _{a_2^{}}(t,\beta )=\frac{L+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\tau _i\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^iS_i^{\left(2\right)}}{1\tau _p\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^p}$$

and

$$\theta _{a_3^+}(t,\beta )=\frac{R+\underset{i=1}{\overset{q1}{}}\tau _i\left(x^{\left(5\right)}\right)\text{ }t^iS_i^{\left(5\right)}}{1\tau _q\left(x^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^q}.$$

If we write

$$L_p=\underset{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ S_i^{\left(2\right)}=L\end{array}}{\overset{p1}{}}\tau _i\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^i\text{ and }R_p=\underset{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ S_i^{\left(2\right)}=R\end{array}}{\overset{p1}{}}\tau _i\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^i$$

and analogously for $`L_q`$ and $`R_q`$, then we have

$$\nu _{a_2}(t,\beta )=\frac{1+L_p}{1\tau _p\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^p}L+\frac{R_p}{1\tau _p\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^p}R$$

and

$$\nu _{a_3}(t,\beta )=\frac{L_q}{1\tau _q\left(x^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^q}L+\frac{1+R_q}{1\tau _q\left(x^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^q}R.$$

The weighted kneading determinant $`D(t,\beta )`$ for these kneading data is

$$D(t,\beta )=\frac{1}{\left(1\tau _p\left(x^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^p\right)\left(1\tau _q\left(x^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^q\right)}\left|\begin{array}{cc}1+L_p& R_p\\ & \\ L_q& 1+R_q\end{array}\right|.$$

Let $`det\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta =det(It\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta )`$ be the characteristic polynomial of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$, where $`I`$ is the identity matrix. Thus, we have

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\beta =[\begin{array}{ccccc}1\mu _{2,0}t& \mu _{2,1}t& \mathrm{}& \mu _{2,p2}t& \mu _{2,p1}t\theta _{2,p1}t\\ \theta _{2,0}t& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \theta _{2,p2}t& 1\\ \delta _{2,0}t& \delta _{2,1}t& \mathrm{}& \delta _{2,p2}t& \delta _{2,p1}t\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mu _{5,0}t& \mu _{5,1}t& \mathrm{}& \mu _{5,q2}t& \mu _{5,q1}t\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 1\delta _{5,0}t& \delta _{5,1}t& \mathrm{}& \delta _{5,q2}t& \delta _{5,q1}t\theta _{5,q1}t\\ \theta _{5,0}t& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \theta _{5,q2}t& 1\end{array}].$$

where

$`\theta _{2,k_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left(x_{k_1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{k_1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta `$
$`\mu _{2,k_1}`$ $``$ $`\{0,\pm \epsilon \left(x_{k_1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{k_1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta \}\text{ with }0k_1p1,`$
$`\theta _{5,k_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon \left(x_{k_2}^{\left(5\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{k_2}^{\left(5\right)}\right)\right|^\beta `$
$`\mu _{5,k_2}`$ $``$ $`\{0,\pm \epsilon \left(x_{k_2}^{\left(5\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{k_2}^{\left(5\right)}\right)\right|^\beta \}\text{ with }0k_2q1`$
and similarly for $`\delta _{2,k_1}`$ and $`\delta _{5,k_2}`$. Using matrix elementary operations for the matrix $`It\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$, we have the following equivalent matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\underset{k=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\mu _{2,k}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^{k+1}\tau _p\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^p& \underset{k=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\mu _{5,k}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^{k+1}\\ & \\ \underset{k=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\delta _{2,k}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^{k+1}& 1\underset{k=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\delta _{5,k}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^{k+1}\tau _q\left(x_0^{\left(5\right)}\right)t^q\end{array}\right].$$

Now we will compare the elements of the above matrix to the elements of the weighted kneading matrix $`N(t,\beta ).`$ Note that

(3.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}1\underset{k=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\mu _{2,k}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^{k+1}\tau _p\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^p\hfill \\ \\ =\left(1\mu _{2,0}t\right)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^k\left(\mu _{2,k}t\right)\hfill \\ \\ +\tau _{p1}\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)t^{p1}\left(\epsilon \left(x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta t\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand

(3.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\left(1\epsilon \left(I_1\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_1\right)\right|^\beta t\right)\left(1+L_p\right)\hfill \\ \\ =\left(1\epsilon \left(I_1\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_1\right)\right|^\beta t\right)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}k=1\\ S_k^{\left(2\right)}=L\end{array}}{\overset{p1}{}}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^k\hfill \\ \\ +\underset{\begin{array}{c}k=1\\ S_k^{\left(2\right)}=L\end{array}}{\overset{p1}{}}\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^k\left(\epsilon \left(I_1\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_1\right)\right|^\beta t\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`\mu _{2,k}0`$ with $`1kp1`$ then $`\tau _{k+1}\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)0`$ on $`L_p`$. That is,

$$\tau _k\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^k\left(\pm \epsilon \left(x_k^{\left(2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_k^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta t\right)=\pm \tau _{k+1}\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^{k+1}.$$

In particular, if $`\mu _{2,p1}0`$ then $`x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}`$ is associated to the symbol $`R`$, i.e.,

$$\mu _{2,p1}=\epsilon \left(x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta .$$

Consequently, in (3.2) we have

$$\tau _{p1}\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^{p1}\epsilon \left(x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\left|F^{}\left(x_{p1}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right|^\beta t=\tau _p\left(x_0^{\left(2\right)}\right)\text{ }t^p.$$

Hence, in (3.3), the fact that the orbit is periodic, implies that we return to the symbol $`L`$. Thus, we have

$$1\mu _{2,0}t=1\epsilon \left(I_1\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_1\right)\right|^\beta t.$$

Let $`R\left(t\right)`$ be the product of cyclotomic polynomials and $`P_{K_\beta }\left(t\right)`$ be the characteristic polynomial of the matrix $`K_\beta `$ associated to $`F`$. Set

$$D^{}(t,\beta )=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\left(1\epsilon \left(I_1\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_1\right)\right|^\beta t\right)\left(1+L_p\right)& \left(1\epsilon \left(I_2\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_2\right)\right|^\beta t\right)R_p\\ & \\ \left(1\epsilon \left(I_1\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_1\right)\right|^\beta t\right)L_q& \left(1\epsilon \left(I_2\right)\left|F^{}\left(I_2\right)\right|^\beta t\right)\left(1+R_q\right)\end{array}\right|.$$

Using the above comparison between the elements of the equivalent matrix to $`It\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$ and the elements of the weighted kneading matrix, we have

$$D(t,\beta )=\frac{D^{}(t,\beta )}{R\left(t\right)P_{K_\beta }\left(t\right)}=det\left(It\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta ^T\right)=P_{V_\beta }\left(t\right).$$

By Theorem 1, the desired result follows.

The following statement will allows us to compute explicitly the Hausdorff dimension, the escape rate and the topological entropy.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`D(t,\beta )`$ be the weighted kneading determinant, under the conditions of the previous theorem.

(i) If $`\beta `$ is the unique solution of $`D(1,\beta )=0`$, then $`\beta `$ is the Hausdorff dimension of the attractor $`E`$.

(ii) If $`t_1`$ is the least real positive solution of $`D(t,1)=0`$, then $`\mathrm{log}\left(t_1\right)`$ is the escape rate of the pair $`(E,F)`$.

(iii) If $`t_0`$ is the least real positive solution of $`D(t,0)=0`$, then $`\mathrm{log}\left(t_0^1\right)`$ is the topological entropy of the map $`F`$.

###### Proof.

Considering the transfer operator given in (2.2), we have

$$\left(L_{\varphi _j}g\right)\left(x\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left|F_j^{}\left(x\right)\right|^\beta g\left(f_j\left(x\right)\right)\chi _{F\left(intJ_j\right)}.$$

Let $`a_{ij}`$ be the entries of the transition matrix $`A`$. For each $`J_i𝒫_I^{}`$, with $`1im`$, and $`\beta `$ the eigenvalue equation corresponding to an eigenvalue $`\lambda _\beta `$ is

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{a_{ij}}{\left|F_j^{}\left(x\right)\right|^\beta }v_j=\lambda _\beta v_i$$

for the operator $`L_\varphi `$ characterized by the matrix $`Q_\beta .`$ According to \[R1\] and using (2.3), the largest eigenvalue of the transfer operator is $`\mathrm{exp}P\left(\beta \right)`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{exp}P\left(\beta \right)`$ is the spectral radius $`\lambda _\beta `$ of the matrix $`Q_\beta `$.

If $`\beta `$ is the unique solution of $`D(1,\beta )=0`$, then by Theorem 2 and (2.3), we get $`P\left(\beta \right)=0`$. By \[F\] and \[LS2\], we can conclude that $`\beta =dim_H\left(E\right)`$.

On the other hand, considering the parameter $`\beta =1`$, we have that $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{exp}P\left(1\right)`$ is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $`Q_1`$. The second statement follows from \[BC\], where the escape rate $`\gamma `$ is given by $`\gamma =P\left(1\right)`$. Thus, the escape rate is $`\gamma =\mathrm{log}\left(\lambda _1^1\right)`$, where $`\lambda _1^1=t_1`$ is the least real positive solution of $`P_{Q_1}\left(t\right)=0`$.

If $`\beta =0`$, then the determinant $`D(t,0)`$ corresponds to the kneading determinant described in \[LS1\], where $`t_0^1=\lambda _0`$ is the growth number of $`F`$, i.e., the spectral radius of the transition matrix $`A`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{log}\left(\lambda _0\right)`$ is the topological entropy of the map $`F`$.

###### Remark 2.

The theory presented in this paper with respect to periodic, eventually periodic orbits or to the orbits that lie in the holes is also valid for aperiodic orbits. In this case, the invariant coordinates associated to the turning points and to the discontinuity points are formal power series. The computation of the topological invariants is done by approximation using: periodic, eventually periodic orbits or the orbits that lie in the holes.

The above results are illustrated in the next example, showing in detail the techniques under discussion.

###### Example 1.

Let

$$F\left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{x}{a}\hfill & \text{if }x[0,\frac{1}{8}]\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{x}{a}+1\hfill & \text{if }x[\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{4}]\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{x}{b}\frac{3}{4}\hfill & \text{if }x[\frac{1}{4},\frac{7}{12}]\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{x}{c}1\hfill & \text{if }x[\frac{4}{6},1]\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`a=1/4,b=1/3`$ and $`c=1/2.`$ Considering the orbits of the points $`a_2^\pm ,a_3^\pm ,a_4^{}`$ and $`a_5^+`$, the kneading data to the map $`F`$ are

$$(L\left(M_2R\right)^{\mathrm{}},M_1\left(M_2R\right)^{\mathrm{}},M_1L^{\mathrm{}},M_2L^{\mathrm{}},M_2R^{\mathrm{}},RM_2M_2L^{\mathrm{}}).$$

The weighted invariant coordinates of each point are

$$\theta _{a_2^{}}(t,\beta )=L+\frac{a^\beta t}{1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2}M_2+\frac{\left(ab\right)^\beta t^2}{1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2}R$$

$$\theta _{a_2^+}(t,\beta )=M_1\frac{a^\beta t}{1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2}M_2\frac{\left(ab\right)^\beta t^2}{1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2}R$$

$$\theta _{a_3^{}}(t,\beta )=\frac{a^\beta t}{1a^\beta t}L+M_1;\theta _{a_3^+}(t,\beta )=\frac{b^\beta t}{1a^\beta t}L+M_2$$

$$\theta _{a_4^{}}(t,\beta )=M_2+\frac{b^\beta t}{1c^\beta t}R;\theta _{a_5^+}(t,\beta )=\frac{(b^2c)^\beta t^3}{1a^\beta t}L+\left(c^\beta t+\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2\right)M_2+R.$$

Consequently, the weighted kneading determinant is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D(t,\beta )\hfill & =\hfill & \left|\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& \frac{2a^\beta t}{1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2}& \frac{2\left(ab\right)^\beta t^2}{1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2}\\ \frac{a^\beta t+b^\beta t}{1a^\beta t}& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \frac{b^\beta t}{1c^\beta t}\\ \frac{(b^2c)^\beta t^3}{1a^\beta t}& 0& c^\beta t+\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2& 1\end{array}\right|\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\left(1a^\beta t\right)\left(1c^\beta t\right)\left(1\left(bc\right)^\beta t^2\right)}(1(2a^\beta +b^\beta +c^\beta )t\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +(2\left(ac\right)^\beta \left(bc\right)^\beta )t^2+\left(4\left(abc\right)^\beta +\left(b^2c\right)^\beta +\left(bc^2\right)^\beta \right)t^3\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +(2\left(ab^2c\right)^\beta 2\left(abc^2\right)^\beta )t^42\left(ab^2c^2\right)^\beta t^5).\hfill \end{array}$$

The orbits of the points $`a_2^\pm ,a_3^\pm ,a_4^{}`$ and $`a_5^+`$ determine a Markov partition of $`[0,1]`$, $`𝒫_I^{}=\{I_1,\mathrm{},I_8\}`$ where $`I_6`$ is the hole. The matrices correspondent to this map are

$$B=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right]$$

$$Q_\beta =\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}a^\beta & a^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & a^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & a^\beta & 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & a^\beta & 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& c^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& c^\beta \\ 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& c^\beta \\ 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& c^\beta \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& c^\beta \end{array}\right]$$

$$V_\beta =\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}a^\beta & 0& 0& a^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a^\beta & 0& a^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a^\beta & 0& a^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a^\beta & a^\beta & 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a^\beta & a^\beta & 0& b^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& c^\beta & 0& 0\\ 0& a^\beta & a^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& c^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& c^\beta & c^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& c^\beta & c^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& c^\beta & c^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& c^\beta & c^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& c^\beta \end{array}\right]$$

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right]K_\beta =\left[\begin{array}{cccc}a^\beta & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& a^\beta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& b^\beta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& c^\beta \end{array}\right]$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8& 9& 10& 11& 12& 13\\ 6& 1& 4& 5& 7& 11& 2& 8& 12& 13& 10& 3& 9\end{array}\right]$$

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\beta =\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}a^\beta & 0& 0& 0& a^\beta & 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & 0& c^\beta & a^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & 0& 0& 0& a^\beta & 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & 0& 0& a^\beta & 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& a^\beta & a^\beta & b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ a^\beta & 0& 0& a^\beta & 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& 0\\ 0& b^\beta & c^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& c^\beta & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & c^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b^\beta & c^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& c^\beta & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& c^\beta & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b^\beta & c^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& c^\beta & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& b^\beta & c^\beta & 0& 0& 0& 0& b^\beta & 0& c^\beta & 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right].$$

The relation between the characteristic polynomials of the matrices $`V_\beta ,Q_\beta `$ and $`K_\beta `$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P_{V_\beta }\left(t\right)\hfill & =\hfill & (1(2a^\beta +b^\beta +c^\beta )t+(2\left(ac\right)^\beta \left(bc\right)^\beta )t^2+(4\left(abc\right)^\beta +\left(b^2c\right)^\beta )t^3\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\left(bc^2\right)^\beta t^3+(2\left(ab^2c\right)^\beta 2\left(abc^2\right)^\beta )t^42\left(ab^2c^2\right)^\beta t^5)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(1a^\beta t\right)\left(1+a^\beta t\right)\left(1b^\beta t\right)\left(1c^\beta t\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & P_{Q_\beta }\left(t\right)P_{K_\beta }\left(t\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we can verify the statements of Theorem 1 and 2. By Theorem 3, we have

$$dim_H\left(E\right)=0.91994\mathrm{};\gamma =0.0877769\mathrm{}\text{ and }h_{top}=1.11531\mathrm{}\text{.}$$


format: text

text:
# A model for coexistent superconductivity and ferromagnetism

## Abstract

We explore the various temperature dependencies and thermodynamic quantities of a mean field model of a ferromagnetic-superconducting system. The starting point for this model is based on an s-wave pairing scheme in the singlet channel of the superconducting state and a spontaneously broken symmetry phase in the ferromagnetic state. We show numerically and analytically that a state of coexistence reveals itself and is favored energetically over other possible states, and a simple phase diagram is developed. Finally, a comparison of the specific heat with experiment is shown.

Much work in the past several decades has been done studying the interplay between magnetism and superconductivity. Some of the early progress by Abrikosov Abrikosov (1988), and the work leading to the so-called LOFF model Larkin and Ovchinnikiv (1964); Fulde and Ferrell (1964) was directed towards ferromagnetic systems of magnetic impurities coexisting with superconducting order. Fay and Appel Fay and Appel (1980) showed how itinerant ferromagnetism can promote p-wave superconductivity, and much of the theoretical studies was concentrated on developing the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter. The question of possible s-wave singlet pairing was thought possible on the paramagnetic side of the magnetic transition, but it was shown even there that ferromagnetic fluctuations destroy it near the Curie temperature Berk and Schrieffer (1966).

More recently, two of the current authors studied a weak ferromagnetic Fermi liquid and showed that s-wave superconductivity is possible, and that it is the favored phase on the ferromagnetic side Blagoev et al. (1998, 1999). A possible phase diagram was predicted, however, at the time there were no materials that demonstrated superconductivity inside the ferromagnetic state. Recently a similar consideration of s-wave superconductivity has been carried out by Suhl Suhl (2001) and Abrikosov Abrikosov (2001) in which the ferromagnetism is due to localized spins. We instead develop an itinerant ferromagnetic model in which the magnetic electrons are also the ones responsible for the formation of the Cooper pairs. In this work, it must be noted that the BCS state is actually the preferred one energetically, as shown in ref.Lei et al. (1984). However, we are assuming that there already exists weak ferromagnetic order, inside which arises superconductivity. The point is that we are assuming the strongest competition to be between the coexistent and the ferromagnetic state, with the pure BCS state not being a possibility. Moreover, in the microscopic models discussed Blagoev et al. (1998, 1999); Suhl (2001); Abrikosov (2001), the s-wave superconductivity pairing interaction vanishes when the ferromagnetic order vanishes. With that said, we can consider this an effective mean field that has nontrivial results and can be shown to coincide with what is seen experimentally.

The phenomenon of coexistent superconductivity and ferromagnetism was then discovered in UGe2 Saxena et al. (2000); Bauer et al. (2001), and subsequently in ZrZn2 Pfleiderer et al. (2001) and URhGe Aoki et al. (2001). The phase diagram of UGe2 is very similar to the one proposed in refs.Blagoev et al. (1998, 1999), however, no superconductivity was detected in any of these materials on the paramagnetic side, contrary to early predictions. These currrent discoveries are promoting much more theoretical work to explain the superconducting pairing, with most calculations based on a p-wave triplet state Wang et al. (2001). Also, it has been verified Pfleiderer and Huxley (2002) that the magnetic transition in at least one of these materials, UGe2, is of first-order below a certain temperature. We will not discuss the thermodynamics of that transition here, as it will be reserved for a future publication.

In this paper we will present some new and unexpected results of an alternative model of s-wave singlet pairing developed by Karchev et al.Karchev et al. (2001). In that paper, some zero temperature results were calculated, and the finite temperature results will be shown here.

We refer the reader to ref.Karchev et al. (2001) for the details, and here we look at the mean-field Hamiltonian obtained from a model Hamiltonian by the standard mean-field procedure,

$`H_{mf}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}ϵ_p(c_\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+c_\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{JM}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}(c_\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}c_\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }c_\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{p}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+H.c.)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}JM^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}{g}}.`$
The diagonalization of this Hamiltonian using a Bogoliubov transformation yields,

$$H_{MF}=E_0+\underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}\left(E_p^\alpha \alpha _\stackrel{}{p}^{}\alpha _\stackrel{}{p}+E_p^\beta \beta _\stackrel{}{p}^{}\beta _\stackrel{}{p}\right),$$
(2)
where

$`E_0={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}ϵ_\stackrel{}{p}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}JM^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}{g}},`$
$`ϵ_\stackrel{}{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m^{}}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{JM}{2}}.`$
The quasiparticle energy dispersion relations are,

$`E_p^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{JM}{2}}+\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2},`$ (3)
$`E_p^\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{JM}{2}}\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}.`$ (4)
The final step is to minimize the free energy to produce the mean-field equations. This results in a set of two coupled equations in $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that will be solved self-consistently below. For $`M`$ we find,

$$M=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}(1n_p^\alpha n_p^\beta ),$$
(5)
and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|=\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }|g}{2}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{n_p^\beta n_p^\alpha }{\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}.$$
(6)
The two order parameters, $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, have dependencies such as $`M=M(g,J)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(g,J)`$ at $`T=0`$. From the numerical solutions of the two coupled equations (5,6), we show characteristic curves of the order parameters, a phase diagram, and the free energy difference of different states. We stress that all of the future results are derived strictly from the dispersion relations and the mean-field equations only, with no other assumptions made about coupling strength limits or small magnetization.

At $`T=0`$, only one of the fermionic particles contributes, since $`E_p^\alpha >0`$ for all $`p`$, but $`E_p^\beta <0`$ when $`p<p_F^{}`$ and $`p>p_F^+`$, where

$$p_F^\pm =\sqrt{2m^{}\mu \pm m^{}\sqrt{(JM)^24|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}.$$
(7)
Therefore, the coupled equations (5,6) reduce to

$$M=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}\left[(p_F^+)^3(p_F^{})^3\right],$$
(8)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{\Delta }|=\frac{g|\mathrm{\Delta }|}{2}[& _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}\hfill \\ & _{p_F^{}}^{p_F^+}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi _p^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
The only solutions of eqs.(8) and (9) which exhibit the coexistence of superconductivity and ferromagnetism are in the case when $`JM>2|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$. However, in theory, there are two other solutions: the pure ferromagnetic state with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and the BCS state with $`M=0`$ (and obviously the normal, paramagnetic state). We will not consider the ’BCS’ state here (see introduction).

Our concern will be with the case $`JM>2|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ as in ref.Karchev et al. (2001). A note is in order here concerning the approximations made in refs.Karchev et al. (2001); Shen et al. . Analytically, the solutions obtained from the coupled equations at $`T=0`$ when $`JM`$ is close to, but larger than $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are

$$I=\frac{r}{\sqrt{r^21}}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{\frac{r1}{r+1}}\mathrm{\Delta }_0,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the usual energy gap equation in a non-magnetic superconducting state:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=2ϵ_c\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{gN(0)}\right).$$
(11)
The important thing to notice is that in eq.(10) the magnetization and the gap are strictly proportional to each other in the coexistent state. This is an artifact of the approximation used, and we would like to stress that the numerical calculations do not make use of this approximation. To show this explicitly, we look at Fig.1 where the coexistent solution with both order parameters is shown as a function of $`J`$ and $`g`$ respectively.

It is seen from this figure that both order parameters go to zero together either at $`J=1`$ or $`g=0`$. This is due to the self-consistency of the coupled equations. As $`J`$ is increased the order parameters are fairly constant and solutions can be found for large values of $`J`$. However, we are mainly interested in weak ferromagnetism, i.e., when the coupling $`J`$ is close to 1, and we take the value of $`J=1.001`$. Using this $`J`$ we show the order parameters as functions of $`g`$ in (b) of Fig.1. This has an interesting feature in that the superconducting gap increases from $`g=0`$ and then gets suppressed at a higher value of $`g`$. The magnetization is constant after the gap disappears because $`M`$ is not an explicit function of $`g`$, only implicitly through $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This feature of the gap increasing and then being suppressed is non-existent in the approximate eqns.(10).

In Fig.2 we have calculated the free energy of the coexistent state with relation to the normal state and the pure ferromagnetic state ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). In the range where the superconducting gap has its largest value, $`g2`$ (see Fig.1b), the free energy of the superconducting ferromagnetic state is lower than the two other states, and hence is the preferred one. For very small values of g, we see a crossover. This behavior will also be evident in the finite temperature free energy, where the area around the largest value for $`T_c`$ in the superconducting state yields a lower free energy.

At finite temperatures one can look at the same types of dependencies of the order parameters. We solve eqtns.(5,6) introducing a debye cutoff in the otherwise divergent integrals. The cutoff is small compared to the Fermi energy as this is the region where the important physics takes place, and varying this cutoff has no qualitative effects on the various quantities calculated below. A phase diagram can also be developed which shows how the Tc’s depend on the coupling constants. Then, thermodynamic properties can be calculated such as the free energy and specific heat.

The temperature dependence of $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can differ widely with respect to changes in the coupling constant space. This is why this model is convenient because it is adaptable for different cases. By tuning the parameters we can see physically realizable results. Figure 3 shows some examples. In (a), $`g=0`$ and we see the full magnetization as it approaches its Curie temperature. There is no superconducting gap in this case. In the second and third graphs, we now turn on the superconducting coupling and see that it has dramatic effects on the magnetization. There are two cases. For a small $`g`$, the $`T_c`$ for $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coincide. The superconductivity weakens the magnetization and they become proportional and simultaneously go to zero. The second case is for a larger $`g`$ where now the $`T_c`$’s differ. The gap disappears and the magnetization falls back onto the full saturation curve, as expected from the equations.

In Fig.4 a phase diagram is developed from this model. It shows the $`T_c`$’s of each order parameter of the coexistent solution plotted as functions of $`g`$. In (b) is the phase diagram of a normal BCS superconductor without magnetic ordering and in comparison with (a), it is obvious that the effect of the magnetization as it gets large is to suppress and then kill superconductivity. The superconducting $`T_c`$ goes through a maximum and then is suppressed eventually to zero.

As with the zero temperature case, the free energy of the coexistent state is lower than that of the pure ferromagnetic state through a broad temperature range for certain values of the coupling constants. In Fig.5 we show one case. This particular plot is calculated with $`g=1.2`$, hence it is helpful to refer to Fig.4(a) to see which part of the phase diagram we are analyzing. In this case, we are looking at the zone where the $`T_c`$’s of the two order parameters do not coincide.

Experiments have indicated that the specific heat displays a very small jump ($`UGe_2`$)Tateiwa et al. (2001) or an undetectable one ($`ZrZn_2`$)Pfleiderer et al. (2001). It also shows a very linear temperature dependence at low T. This is significant in our model because small jumps can be explained by gaplessness, which we have with the $`\beta `$-fermion. Analytically, the specific heat jump can be calculated readily to give,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }C={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{d\beta }}N(0)[1`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{16}}JM{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{\epsilon }}[sech^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{JM}{2}}+\epsilon )`$ (12)
$``$ $`sech^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{JM}{2}}\epsilon )]].`$
The first term on the right gives the usual BCS specific heat jump, however the remaining quantity, which is negative, gives the decrease from the BCS value. Thus, the jump can be tuned depending on the value of the magnetization. In Fig.6 is the numerical plot of the specific heat jump at the superconducting transition inside the coexistent state. The specific heat is calculated with a value of $`g=1.1`$ which corresponds to ’strong’ superconductivity, i.e., where $`T_c_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is large. This can be seen in the phase diagram, Fig.4. Also shown for comparison are some experimental data points for $`UGe_2`$ and it is clear that the numerical calculations model well the qualitative behavior of the specific heat. In that experiment, ref.Tateiwa et al. (2001), the specific heat is measured at 1.13 GPa where superconductivity is maximum.

In this paper, a mean field solution of s-wave pairing was investigated and shown to give nontrivial results and can be the starting point for more detailed calculations beyond mean field. It is important to realize that the question of the nature of the superconducting order parameter is still an open one, and we show that a model of s-wave pairing is at least qualitatively viable.

We graciously thank J.R. Englebrecht, Y. Joglekar, N.I. Karchev, A.G. Lebed, and P.B. Littlewood for useful discussions. This work was done with the support of DOE Grants No. DEFG0297ER45636 and No. 60202ER63404.


text:
# Global DGLAP fit analyses of the nPDF: EKS98 and HKM11footnote 1 Contribution to CERN Yellow Report on Hard Probes in Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC.

## 1 Introduction

Inclusive cross sections for hard processes $`A+Bc+X`$ involving a sufficiently large scale $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ are computable by using collinear factorization. In the leading twist approximation power corrections $`1/Q^2`$ are neglected and

$`d\sigma (Q^2,\sqrt{s})_{ABc+X}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=q,\overline{q},g}{}}[Z_Af_i^{p/A}(x_1,Q^2)+(AZ_A)f_i^{n/A}(x_1,Q^2)]`$
$`\left[Z_Bf_j^{p/B}(x_2,Q^2)+(BZ_B)f_j^{n/B}(x_2,Q^2)\right]d\widehat{\sigma }(Q^2,x_1,x_2)_{ijc+x}`$ (1)
where $`A,B`$ are the colliding hadrons or nuclei containing $`Z_A`$ and $`Z_B`$ protons correspondingly, $`c`$ the produced parton, $`x`$ and $`X`$ anything, $`d\widehat{\sigma }(Q^2,x_1,x_2)_{ijc+x}`$ the perturbatively calculable differential cross section for the production of $`c`$ at the scale $`Q`$, and $`x_{1,2}Q/\sqrt{s}`$ the fractional momenta of the colliding partons $`i`$ and $`j`$. The number distribution function of the parton flavour $`i`$ of the protons (neutrons) in $`A`$ is denoted as $`f_i^{p/A}`$ $`(f_i^{n/A})`$, and similarly for partons $`j`$ in $`B`$.

In the leading twist approximation multiple scattering of the bound nucleons does occur but all collisions are independent, correlations between partons from the same object $`A`$ are neglected, and only one-parton densities are needed. The parton distribution functions (PDF) $`f_i^{p/A}`$ are universal quantities and applicable in all collinearly factorizable processes. The PDF cannot be computed by perturbative methods, and so far it has not been possible to compute them from first principles, either. Thus, nonperturbative input from data on various hard processes is needed for the extraction of the PDF. However, once the PDF are known at some initial (lowest) scale $`Q_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the QCD perturbation theory predicts the scale evolution of the PDF to other (higher) values of $`Q^2`$ in form of the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) equations .

The method to extract the PDF from experimental data is well established in the case of the free proton: the initial (non-perturbative) distributions are parametrized at some $`Q_0^2`$, and evolved to higher scales according to the DGLAP equations. Comparison with the data is made at various regions of the $`(x,Q^2)`$-plane, and the parameters of the initial distributions $`f_i^p(x,Q_0^2)`$ become fixed when the best global fit is found. The data from deeply inelastic $`lp`$ scattering (DIS) are of main importance in these global DGLAP fits, especially the HERA data at small values of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. The sum rules for momentum, charge and baryon number give further constraints. In this way, through the global DGLAP fits, groups like MRST , CTEQ  or GRV  obtain their well-known sets of the PDF of the free proton.

The nuclear parton distribution functions (nPDF) differ in magnitude from the PDF of the free proton. In the measurements of the structure function $`F_2^A=Z_AF_2^{p/A}+(AZ_A)F_2^{n/A}`$ of nuclear targets in DIS (see e.g.  for references) and especially of the ratio

$$R_{F_2}^A(x,Q^2)\frac{\frac{1}{A}d\sigma ^{lA}/dQ^2dx}{\frac{1}{2}d\sigma ^{lD}/dQ^2dx}\frac{\frac{1}{A}F_2^A(x,Q^2)}{\frac{1}{2}F_2^D(x,Q^2)},$$
(2)
the following nuclear effects have been discovered as a function of Bjorken-$`x`$:

* shadowing; a depletion $`R_{F_2}^A<1`$ at $`x<0.1`$,
* anti-shadowing; an excess $`R_{F_2}^A>1`$ at $`0.1<x<0.3`$,
* EMC effect; a depletion at $`0.3<x<0.7`$, and
* Fermi motion; an excess towards $`x1`$ and beyond.

The $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`R_{F_2}^A`$ is weaker and has thus been more difficult to measure. Data with high enough precision, however, exist: NMC has some years ago discovered a clear $`Q^2`$ dependence in the ratio $`d\sigma ^{\mu \mathrm{Sn}}/d\sigma ^{\mu \mathrm{C}}`$ , i.e. the scale dependence of the ratio $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$, at $`x>0.01`$. Since $`F_2^{p(n)/A}=_qe_q^2x[f_q^{p(n)/A}+f_{\overline{q}}^{p(n)/A}]+𝒪(\alpha _s)`$, the nuclear effects in the ratio $`R_{F_2}^A`$ directly translate into nuclear effects in the parton distributions; $`f_i^{p/A}f_i^p`$.

The nPDF $`f_i^{p/A}`$ also obey the DGLAP equations in the large-$`Q^2`$ limit, and they can be determined by using a similar global DGLAP fit procedure as in the case of the PDF of the free proton. Pioneering studies of the DGLAP evolution of the nPDF are e.g. . References for various other studies of perturbative evolution of the nPDF and also to simpler $`Q^2`$-independent parametrizations of the nuclear effects in the PDF can be found e.g. in . The nuclear case is, however, more complicated because of additional variables, the mass number $`A`$ and the charge $`Z`$, and, because the number of data points available in the perturbative region is more limited than for the PDF of the free proton. The DIS data plays the dominant role in the nuclear case as well. However, as illustrated by Fig. 1, no data are available from nuclear DIS experiments below $`x<510^3`$ at $`Q^2>1`$ GeV2. This makes the determination of the nuclear gluon distributions especially difficult. Further constraints for the global DGLAP fits of the nPDF can be obtained from e.g. the Drell-Yan (DY) process measured in fixed-target $`pA`$ collisions . Currently, there are two sets of nPDF available which are based on the global DGLAP fits to the data: (i) EKS98  (the code in ), and (ii) HKM  (the code in ). We shall compare the main features of these two analyses and comment on their differences below.

## 2 Comparison of EKS98 and HKM

### 2.1 EKS98 and overview of constraints available from data

The parametrization EKS98 prepared in  is based on the results of the DGLAP analysis in  and its follow-up in . We shall here refer to these together as EKRS. In the EKRS approach the nPDF, the parton distributions of the bound protons, $`f_i^{p/A}`$ , are defined through the modifications of the corresponding distributions in the free proton,

$$R_i^A(x,Q^2)\frac{f_i^{p/A}(x,Q^2)}{f_i^p(x,Q^2)},$$
(3)
where the PDF of the free proton are from a known set, such as CTEQ, MRS or GRV. As in the case of the free nucleons, for isoscalar nuclei the parton distributions of bound neutrons are obtained through isospin symmetry, $`f_{u(\overline{u})}^{n/A}=f_{d(\overline{d})}^{p/A}`$ and $`f_{d(\overline{d})}^{n/A}=f_{u(\overline{u})}^{p/A}`$. Although exact only for isoscalar and mirror nuclei, this is expected to be a good first approximation for all nuclei.

To simplify the determination of the input nuclear effects for valence and sea quarks, the following flavour-independent initial modifications are assumed: $`R_{u_V}^A(x,Q_0^2)R_{d_V}^A(x,Q_0^2)R_V^A(x,Q_0^2)`$, and $`R_{\overline{u}}^A(x,Q_0^2)R_{\overline{d}}^A(x,Q_0^2)R_s^A(x,Q_0^2)R_S(x,Q_0^2)`$. Thus only three independent initial ratios, $`R_V^A`$, $`R_S^A`$ and $`R_G^A`$ are to be determined at $`Q_0^2=m_c^2=2.25`$ GeV2. Note also that the approximations above are needed and used only at $`Q_0^2`$ in . In the EKS98-parametrization  of the DGLAP-evolved results, it was observed that to a good approximation $`R_{u_V}^A=R_{d_V}^A`$ and $`R_{\overline{u}}^A=R_{\overline{d}}^A`$ for all $`Q^2`$. Further details of the EKRS analysis can be found in , here we summarize the constraints available in each region of $`x`$. Consider first quarks and antiquarks:

* At $`x>0.3`$ the DIS data constrains only the ratio $`R_V^A`$: valence quarks dominate $`F_2^A`$, so $`R_{F_2}^AR_V^A`$ but $`R_S^A`$ and $`R_G^A`$ are left practically unconstrained. An EMC effect is, however, assumed also for the initial $`R_S^A`$ and $`R_G^A`$ since in the scale evolution the EMC effect of valence quarks is transmitted to gluons and further on to sea quarks . In this way the nuclear modifications $`R_i^A`$ also remain stable against the evolution.
* At $`0.04<x<0.3`$ both the DIS and DY data constrain $`R_S^A`$ and $`R_V^A`$ but from different regions of $`Q^2`$, as shown in Fig. 1. In addition, conservation of baryon number restricts $`R_V^A`$. The use of DY data  is essential in order to fix the relative magnitude of $`R_V^A`$ and $`R_S^A`$, since the DIS data alone cannot distinguish between them. As a result, no antishadowing appears in $`R_S^A(x,Q_0^2)`$.
* At $`510^3<x<0.04`$ only DIS data exist in the region $`Q>1`$ GeV where the DGLAP analysis can be expected to apply. Once $`R_V^A`$ is fixed by the DIS and DY data at larger $`x`$, the magnitude of nuclear valence quark shadowing in the EKRS approach follows from the conservation of baryon number. As a result of these contraints, nuclear valence quarks in EKRS are less shadowed than the sea quarks, $`R_V^A>R_S^A`$.
* At $`x<510^3`$, as shown by Fig. 1, the DIS data for the ratio $`R_{F_2}^A`$ lie in the region $`Q<1`$ GeV where the DGLAP equations are unlikely to be applicable in the nuclear case. Indirect constraints, however, can be obtained by noticing: (i) At the smallest values of $`x`$ (where $`Q1`$ GeV), $`R_{F_2}^A`$ depends only very weakly, if at all, on $`x`$ . (ii) $`(F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C})/\mathrm{log}Q^2>0`$ at $`x0.01`$ , indicating that $`R_{F_2^A}/\mathrm{log}Q^2>0`$. (iii) Negative $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$-slopes of $`R_{F_2}^A`$ at $`x<510^3`$ have not been observed . Based on these experimental facts, it is assumed in the EKRS approach that the sign of the $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$-slope of $`R_{F_2}^A`$ remains non-negative at $`x<0.01`$ and therefore the DIS data  in the non-perturbative region gives a lower bound for $`R_{F_2}^A`$ at $`Q_0^2`$ at very small $`x`$. The sea quarks dominate over the valence quarks at small values of $`x`$, so only $`R_S^A`$ becomes constrained by the DIS data; $`R_V^A`$ remains restricted by baryon number conservation.

Pinning down the nuclear gluon distributions is difficult in the absense of stringent direct constraints. What is available in different regions of $`x`$ can be summarized as follows:

* At $`x>0.2`$ no experimental constraints are currently available for the gluons. Conservation of momentum is used as an overall constraint but this alone is not sufficient to determine whether an EMC effect exists for gluons or not: only about 30 % of the gluon momentum comes from $`x>0.2`$, so fairly sizable changes in $`R_G^A(x,Q_0^2)`$ in this region can be compensated by smaller changes at $`x<0.2`$ without violating the constraints discussed below. As mentioned above, in the EKRS approach an EMC effect is initially assumed for $`R_G`$. This guarantees a stable scale evolution; the EMC effect remains there also at larger $`Q^2`$.
* At $`0.02<x<0.2`$ the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the ratio $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ measured by NMC  sets the currently most important constraint for $`R_G^A`$, as first pointed out in . In the small-$`x`$ region where gluons dominate the DGLAP evolution, the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ is dictated by the gluon distribution as  $`F_2(x,Q^2)/\mathrm{log}Q^2\alpha _sxg(2x,Q^2)`$. This leads to  $`R_{F_2}^A(x,Q^2)/\mathrm{log}Q^2\alpha _s[R_G^A(2x,Q^2)R_{F_2}^A(x,Q^2)]xg(2x,Q^2)/F_2^D(x,Q^2)`$. The $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$ slopes of $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ measured by NMC  therefore constrain $`R_G^A`$. Especially, as discussed in detail in , the positive $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$-slope of $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ measured by NMC indicates that $`R_G^A(2x,Q_0^2)>R_{F_2}^A(x,Q_0^2)`$ at $`x0.01`$. Thus, within the DGLAP framework, a gluon shadowing at $`x0.01`$ which would be much stronger than the shadowing of antiquarks, such as suggested e.g. in , is not supported by the NMC data. The antishadowing in the EKRS gluons follows from the constraint $`R_G^A(0.03,Q_0^2)1`$ imposed by the NMC data (see also ) combined with the requirement of momentum conservation. The EKRS antishadowing is consistent with the E789 data  on $`D`$-meson production in $`pA`$ collisions (notice, however, the large error bar of the data point), and it seems to be supported by the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in DIS, measured by NMC .
* At $`x<0.02`$, stringent experimental constraints do not exist for the nuclear gluons at the moment. It should be emphasized, however, that the initial $`R_G^A`$ in this region is directly connected with the initial $`R_{F_2}^A`$. As discussed above, related to quarks at small $`x`$, taking the DIS data on $`R_{F_2}^A`$ in the non-perturbative region as a lower limit for $`R_{F_2}^A`$ at $`Q_0^2`$ corresponds to $`R_{F_2^A}/\mathrm{log}Q^20`$, and thus $`R_G^A(x<0.02,Q_0^2)R_{F_2}^A(x/2,Q_0^2)R_{F_2}^A(x/2,Q^21\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$. The observation in  was that setting $`R_G^A(x,Q_0^2)R_{F_2}^A(x,Q_0^2)`$ at $`x<0.01`$ fulfills this constraint. This approximation remains fairly good even after the DGLAP evolution from $`Q_01`$ GeV to $`Q100`$ GeV, see .

As explained in detail in , in the EKRS approach the initial ratios $`R_V^A(x,Q_0^2)`$, $`R_S^A(x,Q_0^2)`$ and $`R_G^A(x,Q_0^2)`$ are constructed piecewize in different regions of $`x`$. Initial nPDF are computed at $`Q_0^2`$, LO DGLAP evolution to higher scales is performed and comparison with DIS and DY data is made. The parameters in the input ratios are iteratively changed until the best global fit to the data is achieved. The determination of the input parameters in EKRS has so far been done only manually, the best overall fit is determined by eye. For the quality of the obtained fit, see the detailed comparison with the data in Figs. 4-10 of . The parametrization EKS98  of the nuclear modifications $`R_i^A(x,Q^2)`$ was prepared on the basis of the results in . It was also shown that when the PDF of the free proton where changed from GRVLO  to CTEQ4L  (differing from each other considerably), the changes induced to $`R_i^A(x,Q^2)`$ were within a few percents . Therefore, accepting this range of uncertainty, the EKS98 parametrization can be used together with any (LO) set of the PDF of the free proton.

### 2.2 The HKM analysis

In principle, the definition of the nPDF in the HKM analysis  differs slightly from that in EKRS: instead of the PDF of the bound protons, HKM define the nPDF as the average distributions of each flavour $`i`$ in a nucleus $`A`$: $`f_i^A(x,Q^2)=(Z/A)f_i^{p/A}(x,Q^2)+(1Z/A)f_i^{n/A}(x,Q^2)`$. Correspondingly, the HKM nuclear modifications at the initial scale $`Q_0^2=1`$ GeV2 are then defined through

$$f_i^A(x,Q_0^2)=w_i(x,A,Z)[(Z/A)f_i^p(x,Q_0^2)+(1Z/A)f_i^n(x,Q_0^2)].$$
(4)
In practice, however, since in the EKS98 parametrization one sets $`R_{u_V}^A=R_{d_V}^A`$ and $`R_{\overline{u}}^A=R_{\overline{d}}^A`$, also the EKS98 modifications represent average modifications. Flavour-symmetric sea quark distributions are assumed in HKM, whereas the flavour asymmetry of the sea quarks in EKRS follows from that of the free proton.

An improvement relative to EKRS is that the HKM method to extract the initial modifications $`w_i(x,A,Z)`$ at $`Q_0^2`$ is more automatic and more quantitative in the statistical analysis; the HKM analysis is strictly a minimum-$`\chi ^2`$ fit. Also, with certain assumptions of a suitable form (see ) for the initial modifications $`w_i`$, the number of parameters has been brought conveniently down to seven. The form used is

$$w_i(x,A,Z)=1+\left(1\frac{1}{A^{1/3}}\right)\frac{a_i(A,Z)+H_i(x)}{(1x)^{\beta _i}},$$
(5)
where $`H_i(x)=b_ix+c_ix^2`$ (analysis with a cubic polynomial is also performed, with similar results). Due to the flavour-symmetry, the sea quark parameters are identical for all flavours. For valence quarks, conservation of charge $`Z`$ (not used in EKRS) and baryon number $`A`$ are required; this fixes $`a_{u_V}`$ and $`a_{d_V}`$. In the case of non-isoscalar nuclei $`w_{u_V}w_{d_V}`$. Also momentum conservation is imposed; this fixes $`a_g`$. Taking $`\beta _V`$, $`b_V`$, $`c_V`$ to be the same for $`u_V`$ and $`d_V`$, and $`\beta _{\overline{q}}=\beta _g=1`$, $`b_g=2c_g`$, the remaining seven parameters $`b_V`$, $`c_V`$, $`\beta _V`$, $`a_{\overline{q}}`$ $`b_{\overline{q}}`$, $`c_{\overline{q}}`$, $`c_g`$ are determined by a global DGLAP fit which minimizes the $`\chi ^2`$.

### 2.3 The comparison

Irrespective of whether the best fit is found automatically or by eye, the basic procedure to determine the nPDF in the EKRS and HKM analyses is the same. The results obtained for the nuclear effects are, however, quite different, as can be seen in the comparison at $`Q^2=2.25`$ GeV2 shown in Fig. 2. The main reason for this is that different data sets are used:

* The HKM analysis  uses only the DIS data, whereas EKRS include also the DY data from $`pA`$ collisions. As explained above, the DY data is very important in the EKRS analysis in fixing the relative modifications of valence and sea quarks at intermediate $`x`$. Preliminary results reported in  show that when the DY data is included in the HKM analysis, the antiquark modifications will become more similar to those in EKRS.
* The NMC data set on $`F_2^A/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ , which imposes quite stringent constraints for the $`A`$-systematics in the EKRS analysis, is not used in HKM. As a result, $`R_{F_2}^A`$ has less shadowing in HKM than in EKRS (see also Fig. 1 of ), especially for heavy nuclei.
* In addition to the recent DIS data sets, some older ones are used in the HKM analysis. The older sets are not included in EKRS. This, however, is presumably not causing any major differences between EKRS and HKM, since the older data come with larger errorbars, and are therefore typically of less statistical weight in the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis.
* The HKM analysis does not make use of the NMC data  on the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$. As explained above, these data are the main experimental constraint for the nuclear gluons in the EKRS analysis. Fig. 3 shows a comparison between the EKRS (solid), the HKM (dotted-dashed) results and the NMC data on $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$. As observed there, the HKM results do not reproduce the measured $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ at the smallest values of $`x`$. This figure demonstrates explicitly that the nuclear modifications of gluon distributions at $`0.02<x<0.1`$ can be pinned down with help of these NMC data.

## 3 Future prospects

### 3.1 Constraints from $`pA`$ collisions at LHC, RHIC and SPS

The hard probes in $`pA`$ collisions, especially those in LHC, will play a major role in probing the nPDF at regions not accessed before. This is sketched in Fig. 1, showing the regions in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ probed by certain hard processes at different cms-energies. Let us consider the figure in more detail:

• The measurements of semileptonic decays of $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ mesons in $`pA`$ will help in pinning down the nuclear gluon distributions . Borrowed from a LO analysis , the thick solid lines in Fig. 1 show how the average scale $`Q^2=m_T^2`$ of open charm production is correlated with the average fractional momentum $`x=x_2`$ of the incoming nuclear gluon in dimuon production from correlated $`D\overline{D}`$ pairs at the LHC (computed for $`p`$Pb at $`\sqrt{s}=5500`$ GeV, $`2.5y_\mu 4.0`$, with no rapidity shifts), at RHIC ($`p`$Au at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, $`1.15y_\mu 2.44`$) and at the SPS ($`p`$Pb at $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV, $`0y_\mu 1`$). For each solid curve, the smallest $`Q^2`$ shown corresponds to a dimuon invariant mass $`M=1.25`$ GeV, and the the largest $`Q^2`$ to $`M=9.5`$ GeV (LHC), 5.8 GeV (RHIC) and 4.75 GeV (SPS) (cf. Fig. 5 in ). We observe that data from the SPS, RHIC and LHC will offer constraints in different regions of $`x`$: the data from NA60 in the SPS will probe the antishadowing of nuclear gluons and the RHIC data the beginning of the gluon shadowing, while the LHC data will constrain the nuclear gluons at very small $`x`$, deep in the shadowing region.

• Similarly, the DY cross sections of dimuons in $`pA`$ are expected to set more constraints on the nuclear effects of sea quark distributions. In $`22`$ kinematics $`x_2=(M/\sqrt{s})e^y`$, where $`M`$ and $`y`$ are the invariant mass and rapidity of the lepton pair. The rapidity of the pair is always between the rapidities of the leptons forming the pair. The shaded regions in Fig. 1 illustrate the regions in $`x=x_2^A`$ and $`Q^2=M^2`$ probed by the DY dimuons in $`pA`$ collisions at the LHC, RHIC and SPS. The parameters used for the LHC are $`\sqrt{s}=5500`$ GeV, $`2.5y4.0`$ with no rapidity shifts . Note that from the point of view of $`x_2^A`$ (but not of $`x_1^p`$), Pb+Pb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}_{\mathrm{PbPb}}=5500`$ GeV at the LHC are equivalent to $`p`$Pb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}_{p\mathrm{Pb}}=8800`$ GeV: the decrease of $`x_2`$ due to the increase in $`\sqrt{s}`$ is compensated by an increase from the rapidity shift $`y_0`$ : $`x_2^{pA}=(M/\sqrt{s}_{pA})e^{(y_{AA}+y_0)}=(M/\sqrt{s}_{AA})e^{y_{AA}}=x_2^{AA}`$. For RHIC, the shaded region corresponds to $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, and $`1.2y2.2`$, which is the rapidity acceptance region of the forward muon arm in PHENIX . For the SPS, we have again used $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV and $`0y1`$. Single muon $`p_T`$-cuts (see ) have not been applied, the shaded regions all correspond to $`M^21`$ GeV2. At the highest scales shown, the dimuon regions at the SPS and RHIC are limited by the end of the phase space. The SPS data may shed more light on the question of an EMC effect for the sea quarks . The DY dimuons at the LHC will probe the sea quark distributions deep in the shadowing region and also at high scales, especially also at $`Q^2=M_Z^2`$. The region of RHIC data is again conveniently in between the SPS and LHC, mainly probing the beginning of the shadowing region of sea quarks. In $`Ap`$ collisions at the LHC, the DY dimuons with $`y=(y_{\mathrm{min}}+y_{\mathrm{max}})/2`$ probe the regions plotted with the dashed line (the spread due to the $`y`$ acceptance is not shown).

• The dotted line shows the kinematical region probed by open heavy quark production in $`pA`$ (and also in $`AA`$), when both heavy quarks are at $`y=0`$ in the ALICE detector frame. In this case again, assuming $`22`$ kinematics, $`x_2^{pA}=x_2^{AA}=2m_T/\sqrt{s}_{AA}`$. To illustrate the effect of moving towards forward rapidities, also the case $`y_Q=y_{\overline{Q}}=3`$ is shown. Only the region at $`Q^2>m_b^2`$ (above the upper horizontal line) is probed by $`b\overline{b}`$ production. Due to the same kinematics as in open $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production, the dotted lines also correspond to the regions probed by direct photon production.

• As demonstrated by Fig. 1, the hard probes in $`pA`$ collisions at RHIC and at the LHC in particular will provide us with very important constraints for the nPDF at scales where the DGLAP evolution can be expected to be applicable. Power corrections in the evolution  can, however, be expected to play an increasingly important role towards small values of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. The effects of the first of such corrections, the GLRMQ terms  leading to nonlinear DGLAP+GLRMQ evolution equations, have been recently studied in  in light of the HERA data. From the point of view of the DGLAP evolution of the (n)PDF, saturation of gluons takes place when their evolution becomes dominated by the power corrections . Fig. 1 shows the saturation limits obtained for the free proton and for Pb in the DGLAP+GLRMQ approach  (solid curves; the dotted extrapolations are merely for guiding the eye). The saturation limit obtained for the free proton in the DGLAP+GLRMQ analysis should be taken as an upper limit in $`Q^2`$ but it is constrained quite well by the HERA data (see ). In obtaining the saturation limit shown for the Pb nucleus in , the constraints from the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$, however, have not yet been taken into account. For a comparison of the saturation limits obtained in other models, see .

• Fig. 1 shows also which hard probes in $`pA`$ collisions can be expected to probe the nPDF in the gluon saturation region. Especially the probes directly sensitive to the gluon distributions are interesting from this point of view. Such probes would be open $`c\overline{c}`$ production at small $`p_T`$, and direct photon production at $`p_T`$ few GeV, both at as forward rapidities as possible (see the dotted lines). Note that open $`b\overline{b}`$ production is already in the applicability region of the linear DGLAP evolution. In light of the saturation limits shown, the chances for measuring the effects of nonlinearities in the evolution through open $`c\overline{c}`$ production in $`pA`$ at RHIC would seem marginal. At the LHC, however, measuring saturation effects in the nuclear gluon distributions through open $`c\overline{c}`$ in $`pA`$ could be possible.

### 3.2 Improvements of the DGLAP analyses

On the practical side, the global DGLAP fit analyses of the nPDF discussed above can be improved in obvious ways. The EKRS analysis should be made more automatic and a proper statistical treatment, such as in HKM, should be added. The automatization alone is, however, not expected to change the nuclear modifications of the PDF significantly from EKS98 but more quantitative estimates of the uncertainties and of their propagation would be obtained. This work is in progress. As also discussed above, more data contraints should be added to the HKM analysis. More generally, all presently available data from hard processes in DIS and $`pA`$ collisions have not yet been exhausted: for instance, the recent DIS data for $`F_2^{\nu \mathrm{Fe}}`$ and $`F_3^{\nu \mathrm{Fe}}`$ from $`\nu `$Fe and $`\overline{\nu }`$Fe collisions by CCFR (not used in EKRS or in HKM), could help in pinning down the valence quark modifications . In the future, the hard probes in $`pA`$ collisions at the LHC, RHIC and the SPS will offer very important constraints for the nPDF, especially for gluons and sea quarks. Eventually, the nPDF DGLAP analyses should be extended to NLO perturbative QCD. As discussed above, the effects of power corrections  to the DGLAP equations and also to the cross sections  should be analysed in detail in context with the global fits to the nuclear data.

Acknowledgements. We thank N. Armesto, F. Gelis, P.V. Ruuskanen, I. Vitev and other participants of the CERN Hard Probes workshops for discussions. We are grateful for the Academy of Finland, Project 50338, for financial support. C.A.S. is supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community programme TMR (Training and Mobility of Researchers), under the contract number HPMF-CT-2000-01025.