text:
# A Regularized Free Form Estimator for Dark Energy

## 1 Introduction

One of the most exciting discovery of the last decade is the possibility that the expansion of our Universe is accelerating (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1998). The simplest explanation in terms of a cosmological constant runs into to a fine tuning problem (Sahni & Starobinski 2000; Peebles & Ratra, 2002; Padmanabhan, 2002). Therefore, it has become popular to phenomenologically model the component that drives the acceleration as an ideal fluid with an equation of state given by $`P=w\rho `$, where the equation of state parameter $`w`$ is allowed to vary with time. In this parameterization the cosmological constant model corresponds to $`w=1`$. In the recent years there has been a considerable interest in devising methods to extract information about the equation of state from the present and the future cosmological data.

In principle, since this information is coded directly into the distance (luminosity and angular) measures, it is possible to directly obtain $`w(z)`$ from the supernovae distances (Starobinsky, 1998). This requires the knowledge of up to a third derivative of noisy estimate of the distance measures with respect to the redshift. This makes such direct estimation extremely noisy. Methods based on flexible fitting functions (Saini et al. 2000; Nakamura & Chiba 2001) for the luminosity distance have been invoked to get around this problem. In such schemes the number of parameters in the fitting function is kept small, therefore, the allowed behaviour of the equation of state is restricted by the adoption of specific forms for the fitting functions. Other popular methods approximate the dark energy density or the unknown function $`w(z)`$ as low order polynomials (Sahni et al. 2002; Weller & Albrecht, 2002). Since the quantity of interest is the equation of state, direct expansion of $`w(z)`$ are better able to constrain the dark energy. Saini et al. (2003) (hereafter SPB) show that the distance measures are approximately linear functionals of the equation of state in the possible range of parameters. Using this they calculate the expectation value of the polynomial approximations for any given $`w(z)`$. They conclude that schemes based on polynomial expansion of the equation of state are useful since they measure certain well defined, integrated properties of the underlying, true equation of state.

Wang & Lovelace (2001) show that by considering the dark energy density in redshift bins the bias inherent in the finite parameterization of the dark energy can be easily removed. Huterer & Starkman (2002) apply a similar method to binned equation of state parameter, $`w(z)`$. A limitation of this approach is that due to the large number of bins required to reconstruct the precise behaviour of the dark energy, the estimated equation of state turns out to be very noisy. Huterer & Starkman (2002) find that although a direct reconstruction looks hopelessly noisy, useful information about the equation of state is still coded into the Fisher matrix. They show that by diagonalizing it, a few principle components could still be measured with good accuracy from the future experiments. They advocate the use of eigen vectors of the Fisher matrix as the optimal basis to express the unknown function $`w(z)`$.

Such free form reconstructions of the equation of state do not return a smooth function. Our main aim in this paper is to show that simple regularization of the free form estimation helps substantially in bringing down the noise in the reconstruction. In SPB the linear response approximation was used to formulate a similar free form reconstruction in a matrix form. We use this approximation in this paper to investigate the effect of introducing smoothness as a constraint. Although the accuracy of the linear response approximation is limited, we make use of it in this paper since it enables the regularization to be done analytically. Similar results hold for the exact case. We also show that an iterative scheme could in principle extend the applicability of the linear response approximation, while still retaining all the advantages of its analytical simplicity.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we collate the results on linear response approximation. In Section 3 we formulate a discrete version, more suited to real data and apply it to construct the free form estimator for the equation of state. We then add the regularizing terms to modify the estimator to guarantee smoothness. In Section 4 we use a simple model for dark energy to illustrate the performance of the regularized estimation and compare it to the unregularized one. Our conclusions are presented in Section 5.

## 2 Linearized luminosity distance

The exact relation between the luminosity distance and the equation of state $`w(z)`$ is non-linear, however, it was shown in SPB that by considering a given equation of state as small departure from a fiducial equation of state we can approximately linearize this relation. In this section we collate the necessary expressions. In a spatially flat universe the luminosity distance is given by

$$D_L(z)=(1+z)(1+g)^{1/2}_1^{1+z}𝑑x\frac{x^{3/2}}{\left[g+Q[w,x]\right]^{1/2}},$$
(1)
where $`x=1+z`$, $`g=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Q}`$, and the function containing the dark energy equation of state is given by

$$Q[w,z]=\mathrm{exp}\left[3_1^{1+z}𝑑xw(x)/x\right].$$
(2)
We have set $`c`$ and $`H_0`$ equal to unity in these expressions. We can approximately linearize this equation about a fiducial $`w^{\mathrm{fid}}(z)`$ through

$`D_L[w^{\mathrm{fid}}+\delta w,z]`$ $``$ $`D_L[w^{\mathrm{fid}},z]+\delta D_L`$ (3)
$`\delta D_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^z}K_w(z,z^{})\delta w(z^{})𝑑z^{},`$
where the kernel $`K_w(z,z^{})`$ is given by the functional derivative of the luminosity distance with respect to $`w(z)`$, evaluated about $`w^{\mathrm{fid}}(z)`$

$$K_w(z,z^{})=\frac{\delta D_L[w^{\mathrm{fid}}(z^{\prime \prime }),z]}{\delta w(z^{})}.$$
(4)
Evaluating the functional derivative for $`D_L`$ given by Eq. 1 gives

$$K_w(x,x^{})=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{3x(1+g)^{1/2}}{2x^{}}_x^{}^x\frac{dy}{y^{3/2}}\frac{Q[w^{\mathrm{fid}},y]}{\left(g+Q[w^{\mathrm{fid}},y]\right)^{3/2}}\hfill \\ 0\text{for}x<x^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The accuracy of the linear response approximation was shown in SPB to be better than that achieved by the SuperNova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) survey, which is expected to observe about $`2000`$ Type 1a SNe, up to a redshift $`z1.7`$, each year (Aldering et al. 2002). By binning the supernovae in a redshift interval of $`0.02`$, SNAP is expected to give a relative error in the luminosity distance of about $`1\%`$. In SPB the accuracy of the linear response approximation was shown to be better than $`1\%`$, implying that it can be used conveniently for a SNAP class data. However, there are indeed finite departures from the linear approximation and one must be careful in applying it to real data. For the purposes of this paper we use this approximation for convenience, since it enables us to regularize the free form estimation of the equation of state analytically. We shall apply the linear response approximation only to those models for which the departures from the exact expression are small. The usefulness of the linear approximation, however, can be improved by employing an iterative method described below.

## 3 Free form reconstruction of $`w(z)`$

For the purposes of this paper we simulate the luminosity distance $`D_L`$ at a large number, $`N_{\mathrm{dat}}`$, of uniformly distributed redshifts $`z_i`$, up to a maximum redshift $`z=1.7`$. We assume a Gaussian noise equivalent to $`1\%`$ relative error in the distances with $`\sigma _i`$ as the variance. As a first approximation we fit the simulated data to a constant $`w`$ model to obtain $`w=w_0`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is known to a good accuracy this will give us a first good approximation to the equation of state. We then linearize the luminosity distance around $`w^{\mathrm{fid}}=w_0`$. The difference between the given noisy estimate of luminosity distance and the best fit $`D_L`$ as obtained from $`w=w_0`$ model gives us the residuals $`\delta D_L`$.

For modelling purposes we consider a discrete version of Eq. 3

$$\delta D_L(z_i)\delta z\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{bin}}}{}}K_w(z_i,z_j^{})\delta w(z_j^{}).$$
(6)
To quantify departures from the constant $`w=w_0`$ we consider the equation of state to be given in $`N_{\mathrm{bin}}`$ uniformly distributed redshift bins $`z_k^{}`$ with values $`w_k=\delta w(z_k^{})`$, with a redshift spacing $`\delta z`$. The number and placement of bin positions for $`\delta w`$ is such that the the equations generated by the maximum likelihood procedure, to be described below, yield a unique solution. The value of $`\delta w`$ at the position of the farthest given distance cannot be inferred from the data, since it has no effect on any of the distances. In practice we also exclude those bins that are close to the farthest redshift for reconstruction, since the reconstruction is too noisy in those bins. This particular expansion is especially convenient since if we have prior knowledge about the range of $`w(z)`$ then it is extremely easy to code that into the reconstruction procedure.

We define the normalized vector $`𝐝\{\delta D_L(z_i)/\sigma _i\}`$. Similarly we define $`𝐰\{\delta w(z_i^{})\}`$ and $`𝒦\{\delta zK(z_i,z_j^{})/\sigma _i\}`$, where $`𝒦`$ is a $`N\times M`$ matrix. In terms of these quantities a maximum likelihood reconstruction is equivalent to the standard procedure of minimizing the $`\chi _s^2`$ function

$$\chi _s^2=(𝐝𝒦𝐰)^T(𝐝𝒦𝐰)$$
(7)
with respect to $`𝐰`$. This can be done analytically to give

$`𝐰=(𝒦^\mathrm{T}𝒦)^1𝒦^\mathrm{T}𝐝,`$ (8)
as the required estimator for $`𝐰`$. In general Eq 8 gives a very noisy estimate for the equation of state. This is due to the fact that too many parameters are being estimated so the estimator fits most of the noise as well, and this lack of resolution is a general feature of the free form fitting (Sivia, 1996). This formulation gives the Fisher matrix trivially as

$$F=K^TK.$$
(9)
Huterer & Starkman, (2003) diagonalize the Fisher matrix and find that only a few eigenvectors are well determined. They expand the equation of state in terms of the eigen vectors of the Fisher matrix to obtain an approximate form for the equation of state by truncating the series after the first few well determined eigenvectors. They note that truncating the series biases the estimation. They find that the badly determined eigen vectors are precisely those that peak at high redshift, therefore, throwing away those eigenvectors biases the equation to state to zero at high redshift. In the next section we describe another approach that does not have this problem and is better able to represent the equation of state at all redshifts.

### 3.1 Regularization

The expansion described above does not guarantee smoothness or continuity. In fact, for large $`N_{\mathrm{bin}}`$ the solution fits most of the noise as well, and therefore gives a very small value of $`\chi ^2`$. Since an acceptable model would give $`\chi ^2N_{\mathrm{dat}}`$ we might wish to modify the best fit $`𝐰`$ to ensure some smoothness. As noted above, the amount of information contained even in a SNAP class experiment is too little to adequately constrain $`w(z)`$. Additional information in terms of continuity and smoothness constraints tend to fuzz information across the bins and reduces the degrees of freedom of the free form fitting function. In regions where the data is not discriminatory enough, the derived equation of state tends to extrapolate from the well constrained regions and can provide useful information. As an obvious warning we note that in general this is a dangerous thing to do since it might bias the estimator, or even create spurious signal. In our view these disadvantages are outweighed by the fact that such a scheme would gives us, at least, a fighting chance to infer the behaviour of $`w(z)`$ in a way that is independent of the specific form of $`w(z)`$ chosen to fit the data. Regularization also reminds us that we are *explicitly* assuming smoothness for $`w(z)`$, rather than sneaking it in the form of smooth fitting functions.

To ensure continuity and smoothness we modify the $`\chi ^2`$ above to

$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _s^2+\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(w_{i+1}w_i)^2`$
$`+\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}(w_{i+2}2w_{i+1}+w_i)^2`$
The added terms ensure that the first and the second derivative of $`w`$ remain small. The weights $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ present the problem that in the absence of prior information about the first and the second derivatives of $`w`$ it is difficult to decide how to set them in such a way that the solution does not get biased significantly. If $`\lambda `$ is set too large then the preferred solution is a constant $`w`$, and if $`\beta `$ is set too large then the preferred solution is a linear function of $`z`$. If the data is of good quality, and a linear or a constant solution are not good approximations to the true $`w(z)`$, then the inclusion of these terms will drive the solution away from the ideal solution and will drive the usual $`\chi _s^2`$ to unrealistic values. Therefore, our choice for $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ ensures that the value of $`\chi _s^2`$ should lie in the range $`N_{\mathrm{dat}}\sqrt{2N_{\mathrm{dat}}}<\chi _s^2<N_{\mathrm{dat}}+\sqrt{2N_{\mathrm{dat}}}`$.

It is convenient to write the above equation in the form

$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _s^2+\lambda 𝐰(^T)𝐰+\beta 𝐰(𝒮^T𝒮)𝐰`$ (11)
where $``$ is a $`(N_{\mathrm{bin}}1)\times N_{\mathrm{bin}}`$ matrix and is non-zero for

$$_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \text{for}i=j\hfill \\ \hfill 1& \text{for}i=j1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(12)
and $`𝒮`$ is a $`(N_{\mathrm{bin}}2)\times N_{\mathrm{bin}}`$ matrix and is non-zero for

$$𝒮_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \text{for}i=j\hfill \\ \hfill 2& \text{for}i=j1\hfill \\ \hfill 1& \text{for}i=j2\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
In terms of this new regularized $`\chi ^2`$ the solution Eq 8 is modified to

$`𝐰=(𝒦^T𝒦+\lambda ^T+\beta 𝒮^T𝒮)^1𝒦^\mathrm{T}𝐝,`$ (14)
For further details about regularization and some interesting remarks about the connection between the previous expression and an optimal Weiner filter the reader is referred to Chap 18 of Press et al. (1992).

## 4 Numerical Investigations

For our numerical explorations we adopt the following model for the dark energy as the input equation of state

$$w(z)=w_0+w_1\mathrm{ln}(1+z),$$
(15)
since it has the nice property that $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ are the present day value of $`w(z)`$ and its first derivative respectively. Since this model has finite departures from the equivalent linear model it also serves to illustrate how well a regularized estimation gives information about departures from a simpler linear model. The function $`Q[w,z]`$ defined in Eq 2 is calculated analytically to obtain

$$Q[w,z]=x^{3w_0}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{3w_1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(1+z)]$$
(16)
Since the linear response approximation is an expansion about a given $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, we shall assume its value to be exactly known. We generate the simulated data in $`N_{\mathrm{dat}}=50`$ bins up to a maximum redshift $`z=1.7`$. For reconstruction purposes we employ $`N_{\mathrm{bin}}=48`$ bins for placing the binned $`w(z)`$. As remarked earlier, we do not reconstruct $`w(z)`$ above a redshift of $`z1.6`$ due to poor resolution.

The unregularized estimator given in Eq 8 picks up numerical noise even when the distances are exactly given. To show how unstable such an estimation is we contrast it with the regularized estimation in Fig 1, which shows the reconstructed equation of state for $`w_0=1`$ and $`w_1=0.2`$ model without added noise (but with small numerical noise due to inexact mathematical operations). The un-regularized reconstruction follows the true model quite closely but picks up numerical noise and appears noisy. The regularized reconstruction, on the other hand, follows the true equation of state quite closely. The tiny departures from it are due to the fact that the linear response approximation is not exact. This clearly shows that a reconstruction without regularization is ineffective even when the statistical noise is absent.

Since the unregularized estimator is extremely sensitive to noise, we can improve its performance by taking into account the inevitable numerical noise due to inexact mathematical operations to make the comparison fair. To a good approximation the numerical noise grows linearly with the distance. If we normalize $`𝐝=\{\delta D_L(z_i)/\sigma _i\}`$ and $`𝒦=\{\delta zK(z_i,z_j^{})/\sigma _i\}`$ with $`\sigma _iD_l(z_i)`$ then we find that the unregularized estimation is stabilized to some extent. To illustrate this effect, and to show how the reconstruction works for a model that shows strong departures from a straight line we also reconstruct the equation of state $`w(z)=1.0+0.2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}z`$ in Fig 2 without added statistical noise. We find that the reconstruction works better than before for the unregularized case, but the regularized estimation works better in both the cases.

To quantify how the regularized estimator works for *noisy* data we add a $`1\%`$ Gaussian noise to the previous model ($`\sigma _i=.01\times D_L(z_i)`$). We fixed the weights $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ to ensure a reasonable $`\chi _s^2`$ for this experiment. Fig 3 shows the outcome for $`10`$ realizations of the noisy data. The reconstructed equation of state typically has a scatter of about $`0.2`$ at low redshift. At large redshifts the reconstruction is poor but remain unbiased. To see the effect of decreasing noise we lower it by ten times for Fig 4. The reconstruction now works much better, as expected. The scatter at the large redshift is still substantial, however, the equation of state is reconstructed very well up to $`z0.7`$. We also find that the reconstruction recovers the shape of $`w(z)`$, even up to large redshifts in many cases. In part this success is due to the fact that regularization extrapolates from the well determined low redshift $`w(z)`$.

### 4.1 Noise Estimation

Quantifying errors on the reconstructed equation of state is not simple in this approach. One way to do this is to use the reconstructed equation of state to calculate the Fisher matrix in Eq 9. The inverse of that would yield the required covariance matrix. This would be equivalent to assuming a Gaussian distribution for the estimator in Eq 14. Our numerical experiments show that the distribution of equation of states generated for different realizations of noise by the regularized estimator is not close to Gaussian. In fact, as Fig 3 shows, the curves fill the space in a very complex fashion so the distribution of $`w`$ values at any given redshift are not well approximated by the Gaussian distribution. To take into account this effect we generate $`1000`$ realizations of data and plot the envelope of all the curves obtained from different realizations. The scatter is, of course, more concentrated around the true equation of state. The result is shown in Fig 5, where for comparison we have plotted the same for the case where $`\beta `$ is kept equal to zero. The figure shows that the when $`\beta 0`$ the noise goes down in the estimation at all redshifts. This is what we would expect since this term adds information about the second derivative in the estimation.

The envelope for $`\beta =0`$ shows a weak sweet spot at $`z0.1`$ while the one with a non-zero $`\beta `$ the sweet spot becomes stronger and moves to $`z0.2`$. In fact, if we consider the Fisher matrix of the unregularized estimation in Eq 9 we find that no sweet spot appears anywhere. This is indeed as it should be since the $`w`$ values at small redshifts affect the distances at all the higher redshifts, so should be better constrained. If we increase $`\beta `$ the sweet spot moves to $`z0.3`$ and becomes stronger. This behaviour suggests that the sweet spot is, in general, an artifact of the particular method employed in the estimation. The demand that the $`w(z)`$ have a small second derivative cannot fit the data at all redshifts adequately, so it develops an anchor at an intermediate redshift, as is seen in Fig 3. Huterer & Starkman (2003) express similar views on the origin of the sweet spot in their paper.

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown that the limitations of the free form estimation of dark energy can be overcome by simple regularization, which substantially improves its performance. Our regularizing terms incorporate smoothness of the equation of state and its first derivative, but can be easily generalized to take into account further information about the equation of state. We have explicitly constructed an analytic form for the regularized estimator for the equation of state by employing the recently introduced linear response approximation which allows the maximum likelihood estimation to be performed analytically. Although the linear response approximation is not perfect, its applicability can be extended by iteration. The major uncertainty in the determination of the properties of dark energy is the present day density in the form of pressureless dark matter. The results in this paper assume this density to be known but can be easily generalized to take this into account properly. Due to its analytical simplicity and due to the fact that by construction it is unbiased, the regularized free from estimation is superior to all others. However, we do find that artifacts of regularization appear in the form of sweet spots. It is fair to say that at the level of accuracy that a SNAP class experiment will achieve it seems unlikely that this method will give any more information than that given by simple polynomial fits to the equation of state. Since this method is well suited for combining supernovae data with other cosmological tests it might yet prove to be a more useful way of constraining the properties of dark energy.

## 6 Acknowledgments

TDS acknowledges financial support from PPARC. We thank Sarah Bridle, Ofer Lahav and Shiv Sethi for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Local induction approximation in the theory of superfluid turbulence.

## 1 Introduction.

It is accepted that chaotic vortex structures, so called vortex tangles (VT), appear in volume of superfluid helium under the particular conditions. This objects are very interesting because it is well known that hydrodynamic and thermodynamic properties of HeII in many respects depend on this structures , . Obviously, that only statistical consideration is possible for the VT evolution. The vortex tangles consist of separate vortex loops, which evolve under the vortex dynamics laws (the nonlocal Biot-Savart law plus interaction of vorticies with the normal component of HeII). Besides, these loops can merge and break up during temporal evolution. These two mechanisms are not independent, there is their mutual influence. In general, any analytical investigation of the VT evolution, based on consideration of the exact vortex dynamical equations is the extremely formidable task. This connected with the absence, at this moment, of any analytical methods for solving nonlinear, nonlocal (as the Biot-Savart), stochastical equations. Practically all of the known works on this theme represent various numerical (computer) models to explore properties of VT. In turn, the numerical calculations also have large difficults. Because the Biot-Savart interaction is the nonlocal one, to determ motion of a single vortex point, it is necessary to take into account the influence of all entire vortices to this point. Thus, it reqires unreal computer resources and enormous time of the calculations.

In the initial numerical works the local induction approximation (LIA) of the Biot-Savart law was used , . Some analytical advance also connected with this method . Since then the vast list of numerical works has been appeared. The authors obtained various results, using the Biot-Savart law as well as the local induction approximation. However, to this day the precision and the validity of the LIA is the objects of discussions.

The processes of reconnections of vortex lines even greater complicate the consideration of VT. In this paper we will not concern this problem, and only expose some properties of the LIA and, in general, RNG-based solutions of dynamical tasks.

## 2 Dynamical equations.

To describe the dynamics of a vortex filament we use the equation derived in the papers , . To introduce stochastic evolution we use the Langevin approach, i.e. we add into the equation a random force term. That is the usual way to study turbulent-like phenomena. As the result, in the local induction approximation the equation of motion of a quantized vortex filament in HeII takes the form:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{s}(\xi ,t)}{dt}=\beta \stackrel{}{s^{}}\times \stackrel{}{s^{\prime \prime }}+\nu \stackrel{}{s^{\prime \prime }}+\stackrel{}{f}(\xi ,t)$$
(1)
Here $`\stackrel{}{s}(\xi ,t)`$ is a radius vector of a point of a line labeled by the variable $`\xi `$, $`\stackrel{}{s^{}}`$ is the derivative on the parameter $`\xi `$; $`t`$ is time; the quantity $`\beta `$ is the coefficient of nonlinearity $`\beta =\frac{\kappa }{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{R}{r_0}`$, with the circulation $`\kappa `$ and the cutting parameters $`R`$ (the external size, i.e. the averaged radius of curvature) and $`r_0`$ (the vortex core size). The coefficient of dissipation $`\nu `$ appears in the eq.(1) when external counterflow is absent , . The additional term $`\stackrel{}{f}(\xi ,t)`$ models the external random disturbances such as the ”white noise”. The concrete formulation of $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ will be defined later. Let’s note that the eq.(1) is valid only if the normalization of the parameter $`\xi `$ is the arclength. This is the additional approximation if to concern the entire consideration of vortex dynamics, since the overall length varies with time. But the aim is only to expose some characteristic features of the eq.(1).

In the one-dimensional Fourier-representation the equation (1) takes the form:

$$i\omega s_0^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }s_1^\beta s_2^\gamma \nu k^2s_0^\alpha +f_0^\alpha ,$$
(2)
where the operator

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }i\beta 𝑑k_1𝑑k_2𝑑\omega _1𝑑\omega _2k_1k_2^2ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\delta (k_1+k_2k_0)\delta (\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _0),$$
(3)
and $`s_{k,\omega }`$ is amplitudes (in general, complex) of the Fourier harmonics of the function $`\stackrel{}{s}(\xi ,t)`$, the latin indices denote the arguments, i.e. $`s_is(k_i,\omega _i)`$; the Greek superscripts means the spatial components; $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is the unit antisymmetric tensor. It is supposed, that the correlator of the random disturbances looks like:

$$<\stackrel{}{f}(k_1,\omega _1)\stackrel{}{f}(k_2,\omega _2)>=Dk^y\delta (k_1+k_2)\delta (\omega _1+\omega _2)$$
(4)
## 3 Calculations with the RG method

Our application of the RG-procedure in principle will be similar to the usage of the one in the turbulence theory. The details can be found for example in , , .

Let’s briefly describe the fundamental principles of the RG-method for VT. As usual, the RG-procedure consists of two stages. At the first stage we eliminate high (or low) harmonics from the consideration. Let us separate the modes $`s_{k,\omega }`$ on low and high harmonicses: $`s_{k,\omega }^<`$ and $`s_{k,\omega }^>`$ . Here $`s_{k,\omega }^>=s_{k,\omega }`$ at $`k(\mathrm{\Lambda }e^l,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$; $`s_{k,\omega }^<=s_{k,\omega }`$ at $`k(K,\mathrm{\Lambda }e^l)`$ and $`s^>,s^<0`$ in the other cases. Thus:

$$s_{k,\omega }=s_{k,\omega }^>+s_{k,\omega }^<$$
(5)
The quantity $`K`$ is the parameter of the infrared cutting. Since $`s_{k=0}=0`$ because of the closure of a vortex line, the value of $`K=2\pi /L`$ is defined by the first non-zero harmonic at the Fourier transforming of $`\stackrel{}{s}`$; $`L`$ denotes the overall length of the vortex filament. The parameter of the ultraviolet cutting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by the vortex core size $`r_0`$, and in this case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$; the quantity $`l`$ is some positive number, determing a boundary of the modes separation.

Assume that we consider the evolution of any hamonic $`s_{k,\omega }`$ accordingly to the eq.(2) and $`s_{k,\omega }`$ is in the interval of low (for example) harmonics. The idea of the RG method (such as the Wilson’s formulation) is not to consider the interaction of $`s_{k,\omega }`$ with each of harmonics in the other interval (the interval of high harmonics in this case). Instead of this, the RG method suggests to take into account the ensemble averaged influence of the whole high region. This averaging practically is executed on realizations of $`\stackrel{}{f}`$. The interaction between harmonics in own (in this case low harmonics) interval is considered in the usual way.

Concretely for a vortex loop this first stage of the RG-procedure is realized in the following way. We substitute the rel.(5) into the eq.(2) and then averaging $`s^>`$ over the ensemble of $`\stackrel{}{f}`$. As the result we obtain a new, modified equation instead of the eq.(2). Note that the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is transformed as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^l`$. This new equation doesn’t describe behaviour of VT on small spatial scales — the region of wave vectors $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }e^l÷\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ becomes unavailable. Such procedure is similar to the Kadanoff transformation . If this new equation has the same form (perhaps approximately) as the original one and only it’s parameters are changed, the second stage of the RG-procedure can be done.

On the second stage we reconvert the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ to the original value, i.e. we are returning to the description on the initial scale. In the other words, we are performing the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^l`$.

Let’s analyse some possible transformations of the parameters at the first stage. For example, in the turbulence theory the RG-procedure gives the renormalization of viscosity. This value has a positive addition after averaging high modes. In the other words, the influence of small spatial scales (or high harmonics) leads to increasing the viscosity. That, in turn, means that the dissipation of energy is increased. The mechanism of that phenomena is obvious. There are two processes for the evolution of any harmonic. The first is the thermal dissipation, the second is the nonlinear interaction with other harmonics, or, in the other words, the transfer of the energy of turbulent pulses across the spectrum in the wave-number space. (We don’t take into account the external random disturbance $`\stackrel{}{f}`$). Averaging high harmonics lead to increasing the dissipation of low harmonics. This mean the existence of the transfer of the harmonic amplitudes from the low-frequency part of the spectrum to the high-frequency one. And just the transfer is the mechanism of the additional dissipation. Ones again emphasize: the additional dissipation (increasing viscosity) connected with the influence of the opposite spatial region, in the other words, the flux across the spectrum is responsible for increasing dissipation. And vice versa, a change of the viscosity under the averaging, means, in turn, the presence of the flux across the spectrum in a considering dynamical system. For turbulence theory this result is well known and trivial. Let’s assume that we have solved some dynamical task and in an analogous case, we have obtained a negative addition to a dissipative coefficient. It must mean that the transfer across the wave-number spectrum has the opposite direction (i.e. from high modes to low ones). The zero addition must mean the absence of the transfer.

Now let’s study the eq.(1)-eq.(2) in this context. The substitution of the rel.(5) into the eq.(2), gives the result:

$$i\omega s_0^{\alpha <}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\{s_1^{\beta <}s_2^{\gamma <}+<s_1^{\beta <}s_2^{\gamma >}>+<s_1^{\beta >}s_2^{\gamma <}>+<s_1^{\beta >}s_2^{\gamma >}>\}\nu k^2s_0^{\alpha <}+f_0^{\alpha <}$$
(6)
The brackets $`<\mathrm{}>`$ mean the averaging of only high harmonics. To do this averaging, turn to the functional integral formalism . In this approach, any correlator (for example the fourth term in the right hand side of the eq.(6)) is represented as a product of the functional derivatives (below denoted as $`\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta }`$ or $`\frac{\delta }{i\delta \widehat{\eta }}`$) on auxiliary fields ($`\eta ,\widehat{\eta }`$) from the characteristic (generating) functional of a dynamical system. Not going into details , we write the expression to average the fourth therm:

$$<s_1^{\beta >}s_2^{\gamma >}>=\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\beta (1)}\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\gamma (2)}\left\{e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\delta }{i\delta \widehat{\eta }^\alpha (0)}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\beta (1)}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\gamma (2)}}\}}}\right\}$$

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d1i\eta ^\alpha (1)G^{\left(0\right)\alpha \beta }(1)\widehat{\eta }^\beta (1)}1/2\eta ^\alpha (1)C^{(0)\alpha \beta }(1)\eta ^\beta (1)}|_{\eta =\widehat{\eta }=0}$$
(7)
Here $`G^{(0)}(1)`$ is the zero-order response function $`G^{(0)\alpha \beta }(1)=\frac{\delta ^{\alpha \beta }}{i\omega _1+\nu k_1^2}`$; $`C^{(0)}(1)`$ is the zero-order correlation function $`C^{(0)\alpha \beta }(1)=\frac{D\delta ^{\alpha \beta }}{(\omega _1^2+\nu ^2k_1^4)k^y}`$ (to clarify $`\frac{D}{k^y}`$ see the rel.(4)).

It is well known that the Taylor-series of the first exponent gives usual Feynman’s diagram series. In our case this takes the form:

$$<s_1^{\beta >}s_2^{\gamma >}>=\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\beta (1)}\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\gamma (2)}\{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\{\frac{\delta }{i\delta \widehat{\eta }^\alpha (0)}\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\beta (1)}\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta ^\gamma (2)}\}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\{\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{120}^{\delta \theta \zeta }\{\mathrm{}\}+...\}$$

$$e^{i\eta G^{(0)}\widehat{\eta }1/2\eta C^{(0)}\eta }|_{\eta =\widehat{\eta }=0}$$
(8)
The essential integrations in the last formulae are assumed. Thus, the result for $`<\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}>`$ represents the infinite series of terms, each of that is a product of $`C^{(0)}`$, $`G^{(0)}`$ functions (corresponding to the lines, if diagrams to consider) and essential integrations. Every line $`C^{(0)}`$ or $`G^{(0)}`$ is the result of coupling the derivatives: $`\{\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta }\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta }\}`$ or $`\{\frac{\delta }{i\delta \eta }\frac{\delta }{i\delta \widehat{\eta }}\}`$ accordingly. Obviously only terms, containing an even number of the derivatives is not equal to zero. Otherwise, $`\eta `$ or $`\widehat{\eta }`$ remains as the efficient in the product and the term equal to zero because $`\eta =\widehat{\eta }=0`$. Besides if $`C^{(0)\alpha \beta }`$ or $`G^{(0)\alpha \beta }(\alpha \beta )`$ is presented in a product, this term is equal to zero, because $`\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is presented in the definition of $`G^{(0)\alpha \beta }`$ and $`C^{(0)\alpha \beta }`$. It is easy to observe that all terms of the series for the exact correlator $`<s^\alpha s^\beta >`$ ($`\alpha \beta `$) are identically equal to zero. Since $`\alpha \beta `$ in the external diferentiation, in the internal differentiation an odd number of the derivatives having $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$-components are remained and thus the line $`G^{(0)\alpha \beta }`$ or $`C^{(0)\alpha \beta }`$ is necessarily appeared. Thus, $`<s^\alpha s^\beta >`$ ($`\alpha \beta `$) equal to zero and this is the exact result.

Similar argumentation leads to $`<s^\alpha >`$ is equal to zero. Hence all additional terms in the eq.(6) exactly equal to zero. The latter means the eq.(6) doesn’t change under the averaging. Thus, the transfer whithin the spectrum in the LIA is absent. And this result is exact.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions.

Thus we obtained that the interaction of the form: $`\stackrel{}{s^{}}\times \stackrel{}{s^{\prime \prime }}`$ doesn’t change the spectral structure of the value $`\stackrel{}{s}`$. In the other words, though there is the nonlinear interaction in the system, harmonics doesn’t affect to each other. This is the extremely unexpected result. The usual scenario looks quite otherwise. Usually, because nonlinearity is present, interaction of only two harmonics leads to the appearence of additional harmonics. They, in turn, interact between each other and with original ones. As the result, after some time, the full spectrum is presented in the system. In our case in the system remain only originally excited modes and their amplitudes are not changed. At the same time, their phases ($`s_{k\omega }`$ is a complex number) must be changed. Otherwise it should be full correspondense to a linear equation. However, it is well known the solution (that used the LIA) of the task about the decay of kink , that is not possible in a linear case.

Obviously, it is possible to invent an infinite number of similar equations, not having a flow in the wave-number space. Perhaps, all of them present pure abstract interest. Nevertheless, the single practical note can be done. As mentioned above, the LIA is often used to approximate the full Biot-Savart law in numerical models of superfluid turbulence. The question about the validity of this approach was dicussed repeatedly and the exact opinion is absent. Let’s consider this problem in the context of this work. Transfer within the spectrum is certanly presented in the entire Biot-Savart law, at that, probably, the nonlocal transfer. (Real vortex tangle is described by the Biot-Savart law). Besides, the transfer within the spectrum is the very important feature of nonlinear dynamical systems. For example, whether is it possible to imagine any approach to a turbulence theory, where the transfer of turbulent pulses from large scales to small ones is absent… But just the same picture takes place, when the LIA is used for numerical or analytical considerations of real VT.

The last remark concerns to the usage of RG-procedures for dynamical problems. At this moment this question is not fully clear. Usual way emploing this method based on a perturbation theory. As a result, at the Wilson’s formulation of RG, an infinite series of additional terms is appeared in the renormalized equations. So-called ”marginal” terms represent, at this case, the main problem. The total value of this additions is uncontrolled when the Wilson’s RG-procedure is carried out. The detal consideration of this question can be found in the paper .

In principle, we can expand $`s^>`$, $`s^<`$ to a perturbation series. In the other words, to employ the usual approach to the RG-procedure. If we have done this, the following result should be obtained. There is transfering amlitudes of harmonics across the spectrum is existed. And it is interesting to note, that the flux of harmonics is directed from small spatial scales to large ones, i.e. to the opposite side, in comparison with the turbulence theory. It is very unexpected result for superfluid turbulence, if it were right. In real, the LIA does not describe the flux of amplitudes of harmonics within the spectrum.

Returning to the RG-method and comparing perturbation theory with the presented above exact solution, one can conclude that the marginal additions are really uncontrolled, even if $`ϵ`$-expansion to use.

The work was carried out under support of INTAS (grant N 2001-0618).