text:
# On co-Hopfian nilpotent groups 2000 Mathematics Subject classification. Primary 17B30, 20F18. Key words: co-Hopfian, nilpotent group, characteristically nilpotent Lie algebra, nilmanifold.

## 1 Introduction

A group is called co-Hopfian if it contains no proper subgroup isomorphic to itself. Being co-Hopfian can be interpreted as a rigidity property. Many geometrically interesting groups are co-Hopfian, including some Kleinian groups , some $`3`$-manifold groups (see  and references therein). Any freely indecomposable torsion free word-hyperbolic group, other than $``$, is co-Hopfian . By Mostow rigidity, irreducible lattices in semisimple Lie groups are co-Hopfian, with the exception of free groups . The fundamental groups of finite volume pinched negatively curved manifolds of dimension $`>2`$  are co-Hopfian. In general, if $`i`$ is a homotopy invariant of closed manifolds which is multiplicative under finite covers (e.g. Euler characteristic, signature, simplicial volume, or $`L^2`$-Betti number), then any closed aspherical manifold $`M`$ with $`i(M)0`$ has co-Hopfian fundamental group.

Following P. Hall, we call a finitely generated torsion free nilpotent group an $``$-group. An $``$-group of class $`c`$ is called an $`_c`$-group. It seems the only known example of a co-Hopfian $``$-group is due to G. C. Smith \[24, Proposition 4\] (who does not explicitly say the group is co-Hopfian, yet the fact is apparent from the proof).

To state the main result we need to review some structure theory of $``$-groups, mostly due to A. I. Mal’cev . Any $``$-group $`G`$ is isomorphic to a cocompact discrete subgroup of a simply-connected nilpotent Lie group $`N_G`$ whose Lie algebra $`L(N_G)`$ has rational structure constants. An isomorphism of $``$-groups $`GH`$ induces an isomorphism of Lie group $`N_GN_H`$, in particular $`N_G`$ is determined by $`G`$, up to isomorphism. A (compact) nilmanifold is the quotient space of a simply-connected nilpotent Lie group by a discrete cocompact subgroup. The fundamental group of a nilmanifold is an $``$-group, and conversely, any $``$-group is the fundamental group of the nilmanifold $`N_G/G`$. For nilpotent Lie groups the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is a diffeomorphism with globally defined inverse $`\mathrm{log}`$. The $``$-span of $`\mathrm{log}(G)`$ is a nilpotent Lie subalgebra over $``$, which we denote by $`L(G)`$. In fact, $`\mathrm{exp}(L(G))`$ is a dense subgroup of $`N_G`$ isomorphic to the Mal’cev completion of $`G`$, and the isomorphism type of $`L(G)`$ depends only on $`G`$. Conversely, any nilpotent (finite-dimensional) Lie algebra $`L`$ over $``$ arises as $`L(G)`$ for some $``$-group $`G`$, and $`G`$ is uniquely determined by $`L`$ up to commensurability. This correspondence between $``$-groups and nilpotent Lie algebras over $``$ allows us to translate certain group-theoretic questions into the Lie algebra language, where they are often easier to handle. To this end, we obtain the following characterization of co-Hopfian $``$-groups.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`G`$ be an $``$-group. Then $`G`$ is co-Hopfian if and only if $`|det(\mathrm{\Phi })|=1`$ for any Lie algebra automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`L(G)`$ that maps $`\mathrm{log}(G)`$ into itself.

In Section 2 we prove, among other things, that if $`G`$ is an $``$-group and the Lie algebra $`L(G)`$ is characteristically nilpotent, then $`G`$ is co-Hopfian. In Section 3 we apply results of R. M. Bryant and J. R. J. Groves  to produce co-Hopfian $``$-groups with prescribed automorphism groups. Proposition 1.1 is proved in Section 4, where we also recall some basic facts on $``$-groups. In Section 5 we collect some observations on maps between nilmanifolds.

## 2 Characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras

A Lie algebra $`L`$ is called characteristically nilpotent if each derivation of $`L`$ is a nilpotent endomorphism. Any characteristically nilpotent Lie algebra is nilpotent (see the proof of \[14, Theorem 1\]) and the class of characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras is closed under direct sums . We get the following.

###### Corollary 2.1.

If $`G`$ is an $``$-group and $`L(G)`$ is characteristically nilpotent, then $`G`$ is co-Hopfian.

###### Proof.

Set $`L=L(G)`$ and let $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(L)`$ be the irreducible component of the identity in the algebraic group $`\mathrm{Aut}(L)`$. The Lie algebra of $`\mathrm{Aut}(L)`$ is the algebra of derivations of $`L`$ \[5, II.14, Theorem 16\], which is nilpotent since $`L`$ is characteristically nilpotent \[14, Theorem 1\]. Hence, each element of $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(L)`$ is unipotent \[6, V.3.4, Proposition 14\], in particular it has determinant $`1`$. Since $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(L)`$ has finite index in $`\mathrm{Aut}(L)`$, each element of $`\mathrm{Aut}(L)`$ has determinant $`\pm 1`$, and Proposition 1.1 applies. ∎

Many explicit examples of characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras are known (see  for a survey and references therein). I am indebted to J. M. Ancochea who explained to me that in each dimension $`7`$ there are infinitely many pairwise non-isomorphic characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras over $``$, in particular, we deduce the following.

###### Corollary 2.2.

For each $`n7`$, the number of commensurability classes of co-Hopfian $``$-groups of rank $`n`$ is infinite.

Here by the rank of an $``$-group $`G`$ we mean $`dim(L(G))`$. Incidentally, $`dim(L(G))=dim(N_G)`$, and since $`N_G`$ is contractible and $`N_G/G`$ is compact, $`dim(N_G)`$ is equal to the cohomological dimension of $`G`$.

Recall that a group $`G`$ is called compressible if any finite index subgroup of $`G`$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $`G`$. Some classes of $``$-groups are known to consist of compressible groups . Of course, if an $``$-group is compressible, it is not co-Hopfian. The converse is not true, as the following shows.

###### Corollary 2.3.

If $`L`$ is a characteristically nilpotent Lie algebra and $`G`$ is an $``$-group with $`L(G)L`$, then $`G\times `$ is not co-Hopfian and not compressible.

###### Proof.

The group $`G\times `$ is not co-Hopfian for it contains $`G\times 2`$. Let $`H`$ be a proper subgroup of $`G`$ of finite index (which exists since $``$-groups are residually finite). Arguing by contradiction, assume $`G\times `$ is compressible so that there is an endomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`G\times `$ with image inside $`H\times `$, and look at the induced automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`L(G\times )L`$. Since $`L`$ is characteristically nilpotent, its center $`C(L)`$ is contained in $`[L,L]`$ .

The derived subalgebra $`[L,L]`$ of $`L`$ is just the subspace $`[L,L]`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves the derived subalgebra, it preserves the subspace $`C(L)`$. Since $`\mathrm{exp}`$ maps the center of the Lie algebra onto the center of the group, $`\varphi `$ maps $`C(G)\times \{0\}`$, where $`C(G)`$ is the center of $`G`$, into $`C(G)\times \{0\}`$.

Let $`p:G\times G`$ be the projection on the first factor, and $`i:GG\times `$ be the inclusion. Since $`\mathrm{ker}(p)`$ lies in the center of $`G\times `$ and $`\varphi `$ is injective, $`\varphi ^1(\mathrm{ker}(p))`$ also belongs to the center of $`G\times `$, which is $`C(G)\times `$. So $`i(G)\varphi ^1(\mathrm{ker}(p))`$ is contained in $`C(G)\times \{0\}`$, and therefore $`\varphi (i(G))\mathrm{ker}(p)C(G)\times \{0\}`$. We conclude that $`p\varphi i`$ is an injective endomorphism of $`G`$, whose image lies in $`H`$, which is impossible since $`G`$ is co-Hopfian by Corollary 2.1. ∎

Smith noted  that being compressible is invariant under commensurability for $``$-groups. It would be interesting to know whether the same is true for the co-Hopfian property. In other words, can one decide whether an $``$-group $`G`$ is co-Hopfian by looking at $`L(G)`$?

A related question is whether the co-Hopfian property for $`G`$ can be read off $`L(G)`$, which is the Lie algebra of $`N_G`$. Note that $`L(G)`$ is characteristically nilpotent if and only if $`L(G)`$ is characteristically nilpotent , which immediately implies a stronger version of Corollary 2.1.

###### Corollary 2.4.

If $`G`$ is an $``$-group with $`L(G)`$ characteristically nilpotent, then any discrete cocompact subgroup of $`N_G`$ is co-Hopfian.

There are several ways to measure the “size” of an $``$-group $`G`$, the most obvious being the nilpotency class and the rank. One can also measure the “size” of $`G`$ by $`rk(G/[G,G])`$, which is the first Betti number of the nilmanifold $`N_G/G`$. Note that $`rk(G/[G,G])=dim(L/[L,L])`$ for $`L=L(G)`$, and $`dim(L/[L,L])`$ is equal to the number of generators of $`L`$, as a Lie algebra. In particular, $`dim(L/[L,L])2`$.

Explicit examples of characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras  give rise to the following “small” co-Hopfian $``$-groups.

###### Example 2.5.

(1) there is a co-Hopfian $`_6`$-group of rank $`7`$ . I do not know any co-Hopfian $``$-groups of rank $`<7`$. Note that nilpotent Lie algebras over $``$ of dimension $`<7`$ are classified in .
(2) there is a co-Hopfian $`_3`$-group of rank $`8`$ . This example is optimal, as far as the class is concerned, since all $``$-groups of class $`1`$ or $`2`$ are compressible .
(3) there is a co-Hopfian $`_6`$-group $`G`$ of rank $`9`$ with $`rk(G/[G,G])=2`$ . This was the first example of a co-Hopfian $``$-group given in . Note that the construction of  discussed in Section 3 provides a co-Hopfian $``$-group of any given value of $`rk(G/[G,G])2`$.

## 3 $``$-groups with prescribed automorphism groups

A very different source of co-Hopfian $``$-groups is the following construction of Bryant and Groves . Let $`n2`$ and $`H`$ be an arbitrary Zariski-closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$. According to , there exists an $`n`$-generator nilpotent Lie algebra $`L`$ over $``$ such that $`H`$ is the image of $`\mathrm{A}ut(L)`$ under the homomorphism $`\mathrm{A}ut(L)\mathrm{A}ut(L/[L,L])\mathrm{GL}_n()`$.

For any nilpotent Lie algebra $`L`$ over $``$, the kernel of $`\mathrm{A}ut(L)\mathrm{A}ut(L/[L,L])`$ consists of unipotent automorphisms (see \[13, pp.136-137\]), in particular, each of them has determinant $`1`$. If in addition $`H\mathrm{SL}_n()`$, then a simple linear algebra argument shows that $`det(\varphi )=1`$ for any $`\varphi \mathrm{Aut}(L)`$, so that by Proposition 1.1, any $``$-group $`G`$ with $`L(G)L`$ is co-Hopfian. (As explained in the proof of Corollary 3.1, the assumption $`H\mathrm{SL}_n()`$ can be dropped if one is willing to increase $`n`$ by $`1`$. Also $`\mathrm{SL}_n()`$ can be replaced with the group of matrices over $``$ of determinant $`\pm 1`$).

Recall that a group $`A`$ is called arithmetic if there is a positive integer $`n`$ and $``$-closed subgroup $`H`$ of $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$ such that $`A`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`H\mathrm{GL}_n()`$ commensurable to $`H\mathrm{GL}_n()`$. It is known that if $`G`$ is an $``$-group $`G`$, with $`G/[G,G]`$ torsion free, then the image of $`\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ under the homomorphism $`\mathrm{Aut}(G)\mathrm{Aut}(G/[G,G])`$ is arithmetic. Conversely, it was shown in  that, up to commensurability, any arithmetic subgroup arises in this way for some $`G`$. We now note that in this construction $`G`$ can be chosen co-Hopfian.

###### Corollary 3.1.

For any arithmetic group $`A`$, there exists a co-Hopfian $``$-group $`G`$, with $`G/[G,G]`$ torsion free, such that the image of $`\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ under the homomorphism $`\mathrm{Aut}(G)\mathrm{Aut}(G/[G,G])`$ is commensurable to $`A`$.

###### Proof.

By assumption $`A`$ is arithmetic in some $``$-closed subgroup $`H`$ of $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$. Since $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$ can be embedded into $`\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}()`$ as a $``$-closed subgroup, we can assume without loss of generality that $`H`$ is a $``$-closed subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}_{n+1}()`$. It remains to repeat the proof of \[4, Theorem B\], and note that the resulting group is co-Hopfian by an argument in the second paragraph of this section. ∎

## 4 Preliminaries and proof of Proposition 1.1

Basic facts about nilpotent groups will be recalled below and used without specific reference. The most useful sources for our purposes are \[22, Chapter 6\]\[7, Chapter 5\], and exercises in .

Any $``$-group $`G`$ is embedded in a radicable torsion free nilpotent group $`G^{}`$, called the Mal’cev completion of $`G`$, that satisfies the following universal property: any homomorphism of $`G`$ into a radicable torsion free group $`R`$ extends to a uniquely determined homomorphism $`G^{}R`$. In particular, any homomorphism of $``$-groups $`\varphi :GH`$ extends to a homomorphism of their Mal’cev completions $`\varphi ^{}:G^{}H^{}`$. Note that if $`\varphi `$ is injective, then so is $`\varphi ^{}`$, and the same is true for surjectivity. Two $``$-groups are commensurable if and only if they have isomorphic Mal’cev completions.

The map $`\mathrm{exp}:L(G)G^{}`$ is a bijection with inverse $`\mathrm{log}`$. A map $`\psi :G^{}H^{}`$ is a group homomorphism if and only if $`\mathrm{log}\psi \mathrm{exp}:L(G)L(H)`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism.

Let $`G`$ be an $``$-group embedded into $`G^{}`$. A subgroup $`H`$ of $`G^{}`$ is called a lattice group if $`\mathrm{log}(H)`$ is a subgroup of the vector space $`L(G)`$ and there exists a set of generators of $`\mathrm{log}(H)`$ that is a basis of the vector space $`L(G)`$. One knows that $`G`$ is contained in a lattice group as a subgroup of finite index. The intersection of all lattice groups containing $`G`$ is denoted by $`G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$. It follows that $`G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ is a lattice group containing $`G`$ and $`|G^{\mathrm{lat}}:G|<\mathrm{}`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`G`$ be an $``$-group. If $`\varphi `$ is an injective endomorphism of $`G`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ is the automorphism of $`G^{}`$ extending $`\varphi `$, then
(1) $`\varphi ^{}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})=(\varphi (G))^{\mathrm{lat}}`$;
(2) $`\varphi ^{}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ and $`|G^{\mathrm{lat}}:\varphi ^{}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})|=|G:\varphi (G)|`$;
(3) $`\varphi (G)=G`$ if and only if $`\varphi ^{}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})=G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$.

###### Proof.

(1) and (2) follow from the fact that $`\varphi ^{}`$ and its inverse take lattice groups to lattice groups, and (3) follows from (2). ∎

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`G`$ be a $``$-group. If $`G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ is co-Hopfian, then so is $`G`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\varphi `$ is an injective endomorphism of $`G`$, then $`\varphi ^{}`$ is an injective endomorphism of $`G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ by Lemma 4.1(2). By assumption $`\varphi ^{}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})=G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$, hence Lemma 4.1(3) implies that $`\varphi `$ is onto. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

Let $`\varphi `$ be an injective endomorphism of $`G`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ be the automorphism of $`G^{}`$ extending $`\varphi `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{log}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{exp}`$ be the corresponding automorphism of $`L(G)`$. We identify $`L(G)`$ with $`^n`$, where $`n=dim(L(G))`$, in such a way that $`\mathrm{log}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})`$ corresponds to the standard $`^n^n`$. Since $`\varphi ^{}`$ maps $`G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ into itself, in this basis $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is represented by a matrix $`F`$ that maps $`^n`$ into itself, i.e. $`FM_n()`$. Thus, $`\varphi ^{}(G^{\mathrm{lat}})=G^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ if and only if $`F(^n)=^n`$. Since

$$F(^n)=^nF\mathrm{GL}()|det(F)|=1|det(\mathrm{\Phi })|=1,$$

we use Lemma 4.1(3) to conclude that $`\varphi (G)=G`$ if and only if $`|det(\mathrm{\Phi })|=1`$.

Now we are ready to finish the proof. Assume $`G`$ is co-Hopfian and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be an automorphism of $`L(G)`$ that maps $`\mathrm{log}(G)`$ into itself. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defines an automorphism of $`G^{}`$ that takes $`G`$ into itself, and hence defines an injective endomorphism of $`G`$ which must be onto since $`G`$ is co-Hopfian. So by above $`|det(\mathrm{\Phi })|=1`$.

Conversely, let $`\varphi `$ be an injective endomorphism of $`G`$. Then $`\varphi `$ gives rise to a Lie algebra automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`L(G)`$ that maps $`\mathrm{log}(G)`$ into itself. By assumption $`|det(\mathrm{\Phi })|=1`$, hence by above $`\varphi `$ is onto, and hence $`G`$ is co-Hopfian. ∎

## 5 Maps of nilmanifolds and generalized Hopfian property

An $``$-group is co-Hopfian if and only if the associated nilmanifold $`N_G/G`$ admits no nontrivial self-covering map. Understanding self-maps of nilmanifolds was my original motivation for studying co-Hopfian $``$-groups.

Recall that a group $`G`$ is called Hopfian if any epimorphism $`GG`$ is an isomorphism. It is well known that any $``$-group is Hopfian. In fact, much more is true:

###### Proposition 5.1.

Any epimorphism of $``$-groups of the same rank is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

If $`\varphi :GH`$ is a epimorphism of $``$-groups of the same rank, then $`\varphi `$ extends to an epimorphism $`\varphi ^{}:G^{}H^{}`$ of the Mal’cev completions. This gives rise to a Lie algebra epimorphism $`\mathrm{log}\varphi ^{}\mathrm{exp}:L(G)L(H)`$, which must be injective because $`L(G),L(H)`$ are finite dimensional. It follows that $`\varphi `$ is injective. ∎

###### Remark 5.2.

K. Dekimpe pointed out to us that Proposition 5.1 holds for torsion free virtually polycyclic groups. Indeed, if $`\varphi :GH`$ is an epimorphism of virtually polycyclic groups of the same (Hirsch) rank, then since the rank is additive under extensions, $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$ has rank $`0`$, so that $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$ is finite, and furthermore if $`G`$ is torsion free, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$ is trivial.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Any nonzero degree map of nilmanifolds is homotopic to a covering map. In particular, if $`N`$ is a nilmanifold with co-Hopfian fundamental group, then any self-map of $`N`$ of nonzero degree is homotopic to a diffeomorphism.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:MN`$ be a map of nilmanifolds of nonzero degree $`p`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ be a lift of $`f`$ to the covering $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{N}N`$ corresponding to the subgroup $`f_{}(\pi _1(M))`$. Since degree is multiplicative under composition, $`\mathrm{deg}(\pi )`$ divides $`p`$, in particular $`\mathrm{deg}(\pi )`$ is finite. Thus $`f_{}:\pi _1(N)f_{}(\pi _1(N)))`$ is an epimorphism of $``$-groups of the same rank, so by Proposition 5.1 it is an isomorphism. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is homotopic to a diffeomorphism, and so $`f`$ is homotopic to a covering map. ∎

###### Remark 5.4.

M. Gromov introduced a partial order on the set of closed orientable manifolds by saying that $`MN`$ if there is a nonzero degree map $`MN`$. Thus two nilmanifolds are comparable in this order if and only if one of the manifolds is a covering space of the other one. J. Roitberg  constructed two nilmanifolds with commensurable fundamental groups that are incomparable in this order; the groups are associated with characteristically nilpotent Lie algebra in  and hence are co-Hopfian.

### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank J. M. Ancochea for showing me some examples of characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras, O. V. Belegradek and the referee for comments on the first version of the paper, and K. Dekimpe for Remark 5.2.

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, 253-37, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CA 91125, USA

email: ibeleg@its.caltech.edu


format: text

text:
# Density of states in a superconductor carrying a supercurrent

## Abstract

We have measured the tunneling density of states (DOS) in a superconductor carrying a supercurrent or exposed to an external magnetic field. The pair correlations are weakened by the supercurrent, leading to a modification of the DOS and to a reduction of the gap. As predicted by the theory of superconductivity in diffusive metals, we find that this effect is similar to that of an external magnetic field.

How is the superconducting order modified by a supercurrent? The superconducting order is based on pairing electronic states which transform into one another by time reversal BCS . The ground-state wavefunction corresponds to a coherent superposition of doubly empty and doubly occupied time-reversed states, in an energy range around the Fermi level given by the BCS gap energy. When an external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{A}`$ is applied, time-reversed states are dephased differently, resulting in a weakening of superconductivity. In presence of a supercurrent, the superconducting order no longer corresponds to the pairing of time-reversed states, which results in a kinetic energy cost, and again in a weakening of superconductivity. In the early stages of the theory of superconductivity, it was found that, in diffusive superconductors (in which the electron mean-free-path is short compared to the BCS coherence length) and in homogeneous situations, the modification of the superconducting order by a magnetic field, by a current and by paramagnetic impurities could be described by a single parameter, the depairing energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ Parks . Later on, the reformulation of the theory by Usadel Usadel ; nes  in the diffusive limit extended this equivalence to inhomogeneous situations, where the modulus of the order parameter may vary in space. In the Usadel equations, all physical quantities only involve the intrinsic combination $`\stackrel{}{}\phi (2e/\mathrm{})\stackrel{}{A},`$ where the gradient $`\stackrel{}{}\phi `$ in the phase of the superconducting order parameter is associated with the supercurrent, revealing the equivalence of a supercurrent and of an applied magnetic field. The Usadel equations are now at the basis of the understanding of mesoscopic superconductivity in diffusive conductors Sophie ; Courtois . Experimentally, measurements of the density of states (DOS) in a thin superconductor placed in an in-plane magnetic field were well accounted for by the concept of depairing energy Levine . In contrast, the effect of a supercurrent has been partly addressed in a single experiment, focused on the reduction of the superconducting gap close to the critical temperature Mitescu . A complication of the experiments with a supercurrent is that, if the sample width exceeds the London penetration length $`\lambda _L`$, the current distribution given by the non-local equations of electrodynamics Tinkham  is not homogeneous. In the experiment reported here, the superconductor is wire-shaped, with thickness and width smaller than $`\lambda _L`$, so that the current flow is homogeneous and the magnetic field penetrates completely. Moreover, the effect of the magnetic field induced by the supercurrent is then negligible. This simple geometry allows to test the fundamental equivalence between the effect of a magnetic field and of a supercurrent in a diffusive superconductor, and to compare precisely with the predictions of the Usadel equations.

Our experiment was performed on a current-biased superconducting wire made of aluminum, placed in a perpendicular magnetic field $`B`$ (see Fig. 1). The density of states in the wire was infered from the differential conductance $`dI/dV\left(V\right)`$ of a tunnel junction formed between a small section of the wire and a normal probe electrode made of copper. Disregarding Coulomb blockade and temperature effects (see below), $`dI/dV\left(V\right)`$ is proportional to the DOS $`n(eV)`$. The sample was fabricated in an electron-beam evaporator in a single pump-down, using three-angle shadow-mask technique through a PMMA suspended mask patterned using e-beam lithography Fred . The substrate was thermally oxidized silicon. The $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$-long aluminum wire, with width $`w=120\mathrm{nm}`$ and thickness $`t=40\mathrm{nm},`$ was superficially oxidized in order to form a tunnel barrier with the copper probe electrode overlapping it on an area $`150\times 60`$ $`\mathrm{nm}^2`$. The sample was mounted in a copper box thermally anchored to the mixing chamber of a dilution refrigerator. Measurements were performed at $`25\mathrm{mK}`$. Electrical connections were made through filtered coaxial lines. From the low-temperature, high-magnetic-field wire resistance in the normal state, $`R=77\mathrm{\Omega },`$ the conductivity $`\sigma =27\mathrm{\Omega }^1.\mu \mathrm{m}^1`$ is infered assuming that the electrical cross-section of the wire is $`S=wt`$. The diffusion coefficient $`D=49\mathrm{cm}^2.\mathrm{s}^1`$ is then deduced using Einstein’s relation $`\sigma =N(0)e^2D`$, where $`N(0)=2.1510^{47}\mathrm{J}^1.\mathrm{m}^3`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level of aluminum in its normal state and $`e`$ the electronic charge. The superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=205\mu \mathrm{eV}`$ was deduced from the differential conductance-voltage characteristic $`dI/dV\left(V\right)`$ measured at $`B=0,`$ $`I_S=0`$ (dashed line in Fig. 2). Using these parameters, we obtain the superconducting coherence length $`\xi _0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/\mathrm{\Delta }_0}125\mathrm{nm}`$ and the London length $`\lambda _L=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/\left(\mu _0\pi \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)}175\mathrm{nm}`$. Since $`\lambda _Lw/2`$, the current density is homogeneous when the wire is current-biased, and a magnetic field penetrates uniformly in the wire. The measured critical current of the wire at $`B=0`$ was $`I_c=106\mu \mathrm{A}`$.

In Fig. 2, two $`dI/dV\left(V\right)`$ curves are shown, respectively measured at $`I_s=70\mu \mathrm{A}`$, zero field, and at zero current, $`B=23\mathrm{mT}`$. The reduction of the gap and the smearing of the peak near the gap energy are similar in the two situations, bringing already evidence of the equivalent effect of $`I_S`$ and $`B`$. Note that the magnetic field created by the supercurrent has a negligible effect: for $`I_s=70\mu \mathrm{A}`$ in the wire (see Fig. 2), $`\frac{\mu _0I_s}{2\pi w}0.15\mathrm{mT}`$ whereas the resulting DOS is recovered at $`I_S=0`$ with $`B=23\mathrm{mT}`$. A complete set of data is presented in Fig. 3, with $`dI/dV\left(V\right)`$ measured for $`I_S=17,`$ $`51`$ and $`85\mu \mathrm{A}`$ at $`B=0`$, and for $`B=11.5`$ to $`69\mathrm{mT}`$ by steps of $`11.5\mathrm{mT},`$ at $`I_S=0.`$ Note that when the wire is current biased, the superconducting state is metastable. In practice, for bias currents larger $`85\mu \mathrm{A}`$, the system switches to the resistive state during the recording of the $`dI/dV(V)`$ curve. The measured curve is then similar to that obtained in the normal state. In order to account quantitatively for the data, we use the Usadel theory Usadel ; nes . In this theory, correlations between electrons of opposite spins and momenta are described by a complex function $`\theta (\stackrel{}{r},E)`$, the pairing angle, which depends both on space and energy, and a local complex phase $`\phi (\stackrel{}{r},E)`$. The local density of states is given by $`n(\stackrel{}{r},E)=N(0)\mathrm{R}e[\mathrm{cos}(\theta (\stackrel{}{r},E))]`$. The pairing angle and the complex phase obey the Usadel equations:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}D}{2}^2\theta +[iE\frac{\mathrm{}D}{2}(\stackrel{}{}\phi \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A})^2\mathrm{cos}\theta ]\mathrm{sin}\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta =0$$
(1)
$$\stackrel{}{}[(\stackrel{}{}\phi \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ]=0.$$
(2)
A term describing spin-flip scattering, which is found negligible in our experiment, has been omitted here. The pairing potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is determined self-consistently by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{r})=N(0)V_{eff}_0^{\mathrm{}\omega _D}dE\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{E}{2k_BT})\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )$$
(3)
where $`V_{eff}`$ is the pairing interaction strength, $`\omega _D`$ the Debye pulsation, $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ the temperature of the superconductor.

The supercurrent density$`\stackrel{}{j}`$ is given by:

$$\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{\sigma }{e}_0^{\mathrm{}}dE\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{E}{2k_BT})\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )(\stackrel{}{}\phi \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A}).$$
(4)
In a situation like ours where the system consists entirely of a single superconductor, $`\stackrel{}{}\phi `$ does not depend on energy, and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ can be written as a product of the density of charge in the superconducting state $`\rho _S(\stackrel{}{r})=eN(0)U_S(\stackrel{}{r}),`$ with $`U_S(\stackrel{}{r})=_0^{\mathrm{}}dE\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{E}{2k_BT})\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ),`$ and of a superfluid velocity $`\stackrel{}{𝒱}_S=D(\stackrel{}{}\phi (2e/\mathrm{})\stackrel{}{A}).`$

We have first checked numerically that the dependence of $`\theta `$ on the directions transverse to the wire could be neglected because the width and thickness are smaller than the superconducting coherence length $`\xi _0,`$ which is the characteristic lengthscale for the variations of $`\theta .`$ As a consequence, all the quantities can be replaced by their values averaged on the transverse directions. In the London gauge, the effect of the magnetic field is described by a vector potential parallel to the wire axis $`x`$, with an amplitude $`A_x=By`$, so that $`A_x=0`$ and $`\sqrt{A_x^2}=Bw/(2\sqrt{3})`$ penetre . The constant phase gradient $`\phi /x`$ is given by the supercurrent $`I_S=jS=U_SL/(eR)\left(\phi /x\right)`$. Since $`^2\phi /x^2=0`$, Eq. (2) reduces to $`(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )/x=0`$. No spatial dependence remains in Eq. (1), and one recovers the generic equation given in Ref. Parks :

$$E+i\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{cos}\theta =i\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }$$
(5)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{}D}{2}\left(\left(\frac{\phi }{x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2A_x^2\right)$$
(6)
is the depairing energy, which contains the effect of both a phase gradient and a magnetic field. Note that since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(\xi _0\phi /x)^2+\frac{1}{6}(\xi _0wB/(\mathrm{}/e))^2`$ the relevant parameters are the phase difference between two points of the wire distant by $`\xi _0`$ and the number of flux quanta in an area $`w\xi _0`$. The depairing energy is related to the external parameters $`I_s`$ and $`B`$ by the equation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{U_S(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\frac{I_s}{I_\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^2+\left(\frac{B}{B_\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^2,$$
(7)
where we have introduced the characteristic depairing current and magnetic field $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_0/(eR(\xi _0)),`$ with $`R(\xi _0)=R\xi _0/L`$ the resistance of the wire on a length $`\xi _0,`$ and $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{6}(\mathrm{}/e)/(w\xi _0).`$ Since the transverse dimensions of the wire are smaller than the London length $`\lambda _L,`$ the depairing energy due to the induced field is negligible (smaller by a factor $`10^4`$ cylindre ) compared to the one due to the supercurrent. The DOS for a given depairing energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is obtained from the self-consistent solution of Eqs. (3) and (5). For practical purposes, we give the approximate expressions for the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma })/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`U_s(\mathrm{\Gamma })/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, valid, at $`k_BT\mathrm{\Delta },`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_00.3`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}`$ $``$ $`10.75{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}0.54\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}\right)^2`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{U_s(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}`$ $``$ $`\pi /21.8{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}1.0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}\right)^2.`$
The differential conductance measured in the experiments is not exactly proportional to the density of states $`n(E)`$ in the superconducting wire. Two effects must be taken into account in order to calculate $`dI/dV(V)`$ from $`n(E):`$ Coulomb blockade and the temperature of the probe electrode. Coulomb blockade results from the finite impedance of the electromagnetic environment of the tunnel junction Sophie . The characteristics of the environment are found from the $`dI/dV(V)`$ characteristic of the circuit in the normal state, reached at $`B>0.1\mathrm{T},`$ which presents a 10% logarithmic dip at zero voltage. The environment can be modeled by a capacitance $`C=8\mathrm{fF}`$ in parallel with a resistance $`R=250\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Coulomb blockade results in a convolution of the density of states with a function $`P(E),`$ the probability for the electromagnetic environment of the tunnel junction to absorb an energy $`E`$ cb :

$$\frac{dI}{dV}(V)=\frac{1}{R_t}_0^{eV}dEn(E)P(eVE).$$
(9)
Here, $`P(E)=\alpha /E_0(E/E_0)^{\alpha 1}`$ for $`E`$ smaller than $`E_0=e^2/\pi \alpha C,`$ with $`\alpha =2R/(h/e^2).`$ The tunnel resistance of the junction was $`R_t=140\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As a result of this correction, the peak value of $`n(E)`$ is reduced by a few % in $`dI/dV(V).`$ Finite temperature in the normal probe results in a further convolution with the derivative of a Fermi function. In our experimental setup, this temperature is slightly voltage-dependent, because the probe electrode is thermally isolated from the larger contact pads by superconducting connections. Heat transport only occurs by electron-phonon coupling and by electron tunneling through the junction. Since both mechanisms are very inefficient, even an input power $`𝒫_{\mathrm{in}}`$ in the fW range can induce a significant temperature increase. At bias voltages large compared to the superconducting gap, heating by the tunneling current has a sizeable effect. In contrast, at bias voltages $`V`$ slightly below $`\mathrm{\Delta }/e`$, only quasiparticules at energies larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }eV`$ can tunnel, resulting in evaporative cooling John . The effective electron temperature $`T`$ is obtained by solving the heat equation:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }(T^5T_{ph}^5)𝒫_{\mathrm{in}}+dE\frac{E}{e^2R_T}n(E+eV)(1f(E))=0.$$
(10)
The first term describes heat transfer to the phonon bath, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }2\mathrm{nW}.\mu \mathrm{m}^3.\mathrm{K}^5`$ for Cu Fred , $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.08\mu \mathrm{m}^3`$ the volume of the normal region of the probe electrode, and $`T_{ph}=25\mathrm{mK}`$ the phonon temperature. The second term accounts for additional uncontrolled heat flow, that we attribute to spurious electromagnetic noise. The third term accounts for heat transfer throught the junction, with $`f(E)`$ the Fermi function at temperature $`T`$. From the fit of the data at $`B=0`$ and $`I_s=0,`$ we find $`𝒫_{\mathrm{in}}=185\mathrm{aW},`$ corresponding to $`T=65\mathrm{mK}`$ at $`eV\mathrm{\Delta }_0.`$ The maximum cooling effect is reached at $`eV/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.99,`$ where $`T=30\mathrm{mK};`$ heating dominates for $`eV/\mathrm{\Delta }_0>1.02,`$ with $`T=210\mathrm{mK}`$ at $`eV/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1.5`$.

In Fig. 3, we present with solid lines best fits of the data, taking into account both Coulomb blockade and temperature corrections. The values of the fit parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for each curve are given in the insets. For a comparison, are also shown with dashed lines fits with a constant electron temperature ($`T=60\mathrm{mK}`$). The $`V`$dependent temperature correction only matters for the sharpest curves. In turn, by fitting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I_s,B)/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ with Eq. (7) and (8), we find $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=240\mu \mathrm{A}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }=105\mathrm{mT}.`$ The theoretical values, assuming that the electrical dimensions of the wire are identical to the geometrical ones, are $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=310\mu \mathrm{A}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }=105\mathrm{mT}`$. Conversely, the experimental values of $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi _0^1`$ and $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }(w\xi _0)^1`$ can be used to extract effective values $`\xi _{0\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}}=162\mathrm{nm}`$ (instead of $`125\mathrm{nm}`$) and $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}=93\mathrm{nm}`$ (instead of $`120\mathrm{nm}`$). This corresponds in turn to an increased value of the diffusive coefficient: $`D=81\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ and, through the resistance, to an effective thickness $`t_{\mathrm{eff}}=31\mathrm{nm}`$ (instead of $`40\mathrm{nm}`$). Reduced effective dimensions for electrical transport could be attributed partly to the surface oxidation of the aluminum, which was exposed to air at atmospheric pressure before measurement, and to surface roughness.

A by-product of the Usadel equations is a straightforward calculation of the critical current. According to Eq. (4), $`I_SU_s(\mathrm{\Gamma })\phi /x`$. Since $`U_s(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ decreases with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`I_s`$ presents a maximum as a function of $`\phi /x`$, which is the thermodynamic critical current. At $`B=0`$ and $`k_BT\mathrm{\Delta }_0,`$ the maximum occurs at $`\xi _0\phi /x0.69,`$ and corresponds, in agreement with Romijn , to $`I_c0.75S\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{3/2}\sqrt{N(0)\sigma /\mathrm{}}0.53I_\mathrm{\Gamma }=125\mu \mathrm{A}`$ (using the experimental determination of $`I_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). The difference with the measured $`I_c=106\mu \mathrm{A}`$ might be due to the uncontrolled environment of the wire and to inhomogeneities in the wire cross-section.

In conclusion, we have measured by tunneling spectroscopy on a superconducting wire the effect on the superconducting order of a supercurrent $`I_S`$ and of an external magnetic field $`B`$. As predicted by the theory of superconductivity in diffusive conductors, the overall effect solely depends on a single parameter, the depairing energy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For our narrow wire, the Usadel equations lead to a simple expression for this depairing energy as a function of $`I_S`$ and $`B,`$ which compares well with the experimental determination of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We thank C. Mitescu for the communication of his PhD thesis and for correspondance, and N. Birge for his comments on the manuscript. We acknowledge the technical help of P. Orfila, and permanent input from M. Devoret, P. Joyez, F. Pierre, C. Urbina, and D. Vion.


text:
# Constraint-based analysis of composite solvers Financially supported by Centre Franco-Russe Liapunov (Project 06–98) and by European project COCONUT IST–2000–26063.

## 1 Introduction

Cooperative constraint solving is an area of constraint programming that studies interaction between constraint solvers with the aim of discovering the interaction patterns that amplify the positive qualities of individual solvers. Papers  describe some examples of successful cooperative constraint solving systems.

At the present time, successful patterns of cooperation are detected with the sole help of intuition, feelings, experience, and experiments with software engineering tools supporting cooperative constraint solving such as . One cannot make such experiments systematic without a mathematical framework for analysis of cooperative constraint solving systems (“composite solvers”).

An important practical application for such a framework is integration and development of domain-specific software. The expected applications for the analysis are detection of inconsistencies in the specifications of individual software packages and construction of the specifications for the packages needed in order to meet the requirements on the over-all functionality. The COCONUT project is an example of such software development project in the domain of numerical optimization and constraint programming.

The authors of  illustrate practical importance of analysis of composite solvers with examples from interval constraint programming. They point out two aspects of this analysis: (a) detection of good cooperation strategies subject to expectations from the composite solver and the individual solvers in hand; (b) reasoning about the properties of individual solvers subject to the expectations from the composite solver. In this paper we focus on the latter aspect.

Certain properties of composite solvers are expressible in terms of the properties of the processed data. One can study the properties of this sort using the frameworks of software verification, programming logics, model checking program analysis. In order to reason about the properties of individual solvers one needs a new kind of analysis.

In this paper we present a constraint-based analysis of the composite solvers that integrates reasoning about the individual solvers and the processed data. The idea is to approximate this reasoning by resolution of set constraints on the finite sets representing the predicates that express all the necessary properties. We illustrate application of our analysis to two important cooperation patterns: deterministic choice and loop.

Before going further we give a quick motivational example.

###### Example 1 (Motivation)

Suppose that we, rather “engineers” than experts in global optimization, have in hand a library of numerical algorithms that includes the standard methods for local and global optimization, different tests, etc. and develop a software for minimization of quadratic functions (quadratic programming). Algorithm 1 specifies the composite solver that we have built with the intention to avoid the costly exhaustive search in the case of convex objective functions.

Our logic is as follows: if the graph of the objective is like a tea-cup (“convex”), then we use the steepest descent to go to its lowest point; otherwise we do the exhaustive search. Will this work? Well, sometimes: we have not thought of the objectives that are convex and unbounded from below in the orthant $`x0`$, e.g. $`f(x_1,x_2)=(x_1x_2)^2x_1`$. The method of steepest descent may fail to terminate in this case.

How can we detect similar situations automatically? How do we change a composite solver in order that it work correctly? In this paper we propose a formalism suitable for this kind of analisys.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the basic notions of the paper and describe the operation of composite solvers. In Section 3 we describe a technique for reasoning about composite solvers in terms of constraints on finite sets. In this Section 4 we explain how to express certain properties of the composite solvers in terms of set constraints. Section 5 concludes the paper.

## 2 Solvers, contexts, operation model

In this section we introduce the basic notions of the paper and describe the operation of composite solvers.

A set of individual solvers that interact and exchange some data through a shared data store is called composite solver. We number the individual solvers by integers from 1 to $`n`$. The content of the data store, called context, is divided into control data and application specific data. The control data specify the set of the individual solvers that “are called”. In the constraint programming framework the application specific data are, usually, specifications in some declarative language. The set of all contexts is denoted $`𝒞`$.

The operation of the composite solver is divided into ticks. At the beginning of a tick every solver $`s`$ checks the control data and either changes some part of the context if it is called, or does nothing otherwise. The initial context is provided by the user of the composite solver. Thus our composite solvers are either sequential or synchronous bulk parallel systems.

A solver $`s`$ determines a transformation $`F_s:𝒞𝒞`$ of the contexts at the beginning of the ticks into the contexts at the end of the ticks. The synchronous modifications of the data store must be coherent, that is, $`F_s(c)=F_s^{}(c)`$ for any context $`c`$ that contains the control data indicating that solvers $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ are called.

A context is feasible, if it is generated from the initial context by some sequence of the transformations $`F_s`$’s where $`s`$’s are some solvers.

Now we proceed to the description of our constraint-based formalism.

## 3 From composite solvers to finite sets

In this section we describe a technique for reasoning about composite solvers in terms of constraints on finite sets. We axiomatize the operation model from Section 2 in the first order logic and view the axioms as set constraints on the interpretation of the symbols involved therein. Since the exact solutions to these constraints may be (non-constructible explicitly) infinite sets, we solve our set constraints approximately modulo a finite set of clusters of the contexts $`𝒞`$. We assume that the reader is familiar with the generic concepts of constraint and constraint satisfaction.

The axioms in question are written in terms of a constant symbol $`c_0`$ denoting the initial context, a unary predicate symbol $`p`$ denoting the set of feasible contexts and unary function symbols $`f_s`$’s denoting the transformations $`F_s`$. The axioms are plain and open ($`n`$ is the number of individual solvers):

$`p(c_0)`$ (1)
$`cp(c)f_s(c)=c^{}p(c^{})s=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (2)
$`c^{}cp(c^{})c^{}c_0\left(c^{}=f_1(c)\mathrm{}c^{}=f_n(c)\right)p(c)`$ (3)
The axiom (1) states that the initial context is feasible. The $`n`$ axioms (2) say that the transformations $`F_s`$’s map feasible contexts onto themselves. The axiom (3) states that every feasible context except the initial one has a feasible pre-image under some transformation $`F_s`$.

The axioms (1)–(3) are nothing else than constraints on the interpretation $`\dot{c_0}`$, $`\dot{p}`$ and $`\dot{f_s}`$’s, in the model-theoretic sense, of the symbols $`c_0`$, $`p`$ and $`f_s`$’s. One can write down these constraints are as follows:

$`\mathrm{𝚏𝚞𝚗}\left(\dot{f_1}\right),\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝚏𝚞𝚗}\left(\dot{f_n}\right)`$ (4)
$`\dot{p}=\{\dot{c_0}\}\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(\dot{f_1},\dot{p})\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(\dot{f_n},\dot{p})`$ (5)
The domains of $`\dot{c_0}`$, $`\dot{p}`$ and $`\dot{f_s}`$’s consist of the contexts $`𝒞`$, of all the subsets of $`𝒞`$ and, respectively, of all the binary relations on $`𝒞`$. The symbols $`=`$ and $``$ denote equality and union of subsets of $`𝒞`$. The symbol $`\mathrm{𝚏𝚞𝚗}`$ denotes the constraint “is a function from $`𝒞`$ to $`𝒞`$”. The symbol $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}`$ denotes the image of a subset of $`𝒞`$ under a binary relation on $`𝒞`$.

Since many exact solutions to the constraints (4)–(5) involve infinite sets, we sacrifice precision for tractability and group the individual contexts from $`𝒞`$ into finitely many clusters called context properties, denoted $`𝒞^{}`$. A binary relation on $`𝒞^{}`$ whose domain is $`𝒞^{}`$ is called abstract solver. A context property $`c^{}`$ approximates a context $`c`$, iff $`cc^{}`$. A set $`P^{}`$ of context properties approximates a set $`P𝒞`$, iff $`PP^{}`$. An abstract solver $`R^{}`$ approximates a binary relation $`R𝒞^2`$, iff $`RR^{}`$.

###### Example 2 (Hull Consistency in sharpness analysis)

Consider the Hull Consistency (HC) algorithm  from interval constraint programming. Given a set $`i`$ of interval constraints, this algorithm computes a box $`b`$ that bounds the set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(i)`$ of the solutions to $`i`$. Let the context specify the constraints $`i`$, the box $`b`$, and the necessary control data (of no interest at the moment).

The well-known fact about the HC algorithm is that it bounds the set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(i)`$ sharply, i.e. $`b`$ cannot be improved without losing a solution to $`i`$, if $`i`$ has an acyclic constraint graph (see ). We can express this fact in terms of the context properties “$`i`$ has an acyclic constraint graph” (abbreviated $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}`$) and “$`b=\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(i)`$” (abbreviated $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}`$) by the abstract solver $`HC^{}=\left\{(\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎},\mathrm{𝚘𝚔})(𝒞,𝒞)(\mathrm{𝚘𝚔},\mathrm{𝚘𝚔})\right\}`$. For example, $`(\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎},\mathrm{𝚘𝚔})HC^{}`$ means that the HC algorithm bounds $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(i)`$ sharply, if $`i`$ has an acyclic constraint graph.

###### Proposition 1 (Correctness)

If $`\dot{c_0}𝒞^{}`$, $`\dot{p}𝒞^{}`$ and abstract solvers $`\dot{f_s}`$’s approximate some solution to the constraints (4)–(5), then they satisfy these same constraints with respect to the following definition of $`=`$, $``$, $`\mathrm{𝚏𝚞𝚗}`$, $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}`$:

$`\mathrm{𝚏𝚞𝚗}(R^{})`$ $``$ $`R^{}`$ is an abstract solver
$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(R^{},P^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\text{the image of}P^{}\text{under}R^{}`$
$`P^{}Q^{}`$ $`=`$ the standard union of subsets of $`𝒞^{}`$
$`P^{}=Q^{}`$ $``$ the standard equality of subsets of $`𝒞^{}`$
In practice the constraints (4)–(5) are joined to (some of) the constraints

$`\dot{f_1}=F_1^{},\mathrm{},\dot{f_n}=F_n^{}`$ (6)
specifying the abstract solvers. We build these latter $`F_s^{}`$’s using two data bases that contain patterns of the individual solvers and the relation of logical equivalence on the set of properties of the processed data.

A pattern of an individual solver is a collection of rules of the form “pre-condition $``$ post-condition” that have as common formal parameters the processed data and the called solvers. The pre- and post-condition are conjunctions of atomic formulas containing the formal parameters of the pattern. The formal parameters corresponding to the data not modified by the solver can be marked as “read-only”.

The fact that some solver is called is expressed by the unary predicate symbol $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}`$; the interpretation of other predicate symbols is arbitrary. The pre- and post-conditions in the pattern of a solver $`s`$ are of the form $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(s)C`$ and the symbol $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}`$ does not occur in the conjunction $`C`$. Thus parallelism is not actually allowed.

Let $`\pi _1`$, …, $`\pi _n`$ be the patterns of the individual solvers with instantiated formal parameters. The context properties are conjunctions $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(s)C`$, —where $`s=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`C`$ is a conjunction of the atomic formulas from $`\pi _1`$, …, $`\pi _n`$,— that are not equivalent to the false conjunction. We assume that two equivalent conjunctions are the same object.

The image of a context property $`c^{}`$ under the abstract solver $`F_s^{}`$ corresponing to a pattern $`\pi _s`$ is built as follows. Let $`c^{}=\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(s^{})C_{\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}}C_{\mathrm{𝚛𝚠}}`$ such that every conjunct in $`C_{\mathrm{𝚛𝚠}}`$ contains a value taken by some non read-only formal parameter of $`\pi _s`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}}`$ contains all the other conjuncts from $`c^{}`$ except $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(s^{})`$.

If $`ss^{}`$ then $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_s^{},\left\{c^{}\right\})=\left\{c^{}\right\}`$. Otherwise $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_s^{},\left\{c^{}\right\})`$ = $`\left\{\left\{C_{\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}}\right\}\right\}\left\{\mathrm{𝚛𝚑𝚜}(c_1^{},\pi _s)\right|c_1^{}\text{is implied by}c^{}\}`$ where each set of conjunctions is interpreted as the disjunction of its elements, e.g. $`\{a,b\}\{x,y\}=\{ax,ay,bx,by\}`$, and $`\mathrm{𝚛𝚑𝚜}(c_1^{},\pi _s)`$ denotes the set of the post-conditions following a pre-condition $`c_1^{}`$ in the pattern $`\pi _s`$. Finally, $`c_1^{}`$ “is implied by” $`c^{}`$ iff $`c_1^{}c^{}`$ is equivalent to $`c^{}`$.

The next section illustrates our approach by several examples.

## 4 Examples

The examples in this section illustrate application of our approach to two important cooperation patterns: deterministic choice and loop. Our ultimate goal (out of the scope of this paper) is to couple the analysis with the language for specification of composite solvers in the framework of the COCONUT project. In order that the reader can feel our approach better, we provide in Appendix A the complete specification of the set constraints from Section 4.2.

### 4.1 The naïve solver from Section 1

The patterns of the individual solvers from the example in Section 1 are as follows:

$`\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\mathrm{?}(\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}\left(F\right);S_1,S_2)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(F\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S_1\right),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S_2\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚍𝚜𝚌𝚗𝚝}(\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}\left(F\right),X;S)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(F\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(F,X),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚐𝚕𝚋𝚕𝚂𝚛𝚌𝚑}(\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}\left(F\right),X;S)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(3\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(F,X)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎}\left(\right)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(4\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(4\right)\right\}`$
The symbols $`\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}`$, $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}`$, $`\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}`$ denote the properties “is convex”, “is strictly convex”, “is the global minimizer in the positive orthant”. The only non-trivial equivalence is $`\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}(F)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}(F)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}(F)`$. The read-only parameters are marked $`\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}`$.

The instantiated patterns are $`\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\mathrm{?}(f;2,3)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚜𝚌𝚗𝚝}(f,x;4)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚐𝚕𝚋𝚕𝚂𝚛𝚌𝚑}(f,x;4)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎}()`$. The set of context properties is (we use the notation for disjunctions from Section 3): {$`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(2)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(3)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$} $``$ {$`\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}(f)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}(f)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎}`$} $``$ {$`\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎}`$}. In practice these 24 context properties are numbered and the set constraints involve only their numbers.

Of the specifications for $`F_1^{}`$, $`F_2^{}`$, $`F_3^{}`$, $`F_4^{}`$ generated by the procedure from Section 3, we provide the first one:

$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\})=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\})=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\})=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\})=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\right\})=\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(3\right)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\right\})=\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}\left(f\right),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(3\right)\}`$
and $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚖𝚐}(F_1^{},\{c^{}\})=\{c^{}\}`$ for the other context properties $`c^{}`$.

Solving the constraints (4)–(6) and $`\dot{c_0}=\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$, we obtain the following approximation for the set of feasible contexts: $`\dot{p}`$ = {$`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(2)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚌𝚗𝚟𝚡}(f)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(3)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)`$}. Since this $`\dot{p}`$ contains $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$, we are not sure that our composite solver always finds the minimizer of $`f(x)`$ subject to $`x0`$.

The question “When does our composite finds the minimizer?” is translated into the constraints (4)–(6) and the constraints that say that we examine what happens after the convexity test is called ($`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$ “is implied by” $`\dot{c_0}`$) and forbid the uncertain situation after termination ($`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)\dot{p}`$). Solving these constraints for the initial context $`\dot{c_0}`$, we obtain the following solutions: $`\dot{c_0}=\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}(f)`$, $`\dot{c_0}=\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}(f,x)\mathrm{𝚜𝚝𝙲𝚗𝚟𝚡}(f)`$. This means that the objective has to be strictly convex in order that our solver can find its global minimizer.

### 4.2 The Simplex method and Hull Consistency

Consider a composite solver that makes cooperate the Simplex method from linear programming and the HC algorithm  (a similar composite solver is described e.g. in ). The context specifies some linear, interval and bound constraints, denoted $`\mathrm{}`$, $`i`$ and, respectively $`b`$. The Simplex method updates $`b`$ by bounding the solution set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(\mathrm{}b)`$ and calls the HC algorithm, which in its turn updates $`b`$ by bounding the solution set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(ib)`$ and calls the Simplex method, and so on until stabilization of $`b`$. The important quality of this strategy is that bounds the solution set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(lib)`$ more sharply than the HC algorithm.

The patterns of the individual solvers are as follows:

$`\mathrm{𝚌𝚙𝚕𝚎𝚡}(\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}\left(L\right),B;S)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(1\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S\right)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}\left(L\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚑𝚌}(\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}\left(I\right),B;S)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S\right),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(2\right)\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}\left(I\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S\right)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}\left(I\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚜𝚊𝚖𝚎}\mathrm{?}(\mathrm{𝚛𝚘}\left(B\right);S_1,S_2)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(3\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S_1\right),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(3\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(S_2\right)\right\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎}\left(\right)=\left\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(4\right)\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}\left(4\right)\right\}`$
The symbols $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}`$ denote the properties “has the solution set that we can bound sharply”, “has an acyclic constraint graph”. All the equivalences are trivial.

The instantiated patterns are $`\mathrm{𝚌𝚙𝚕𝚎𝚡}(\mathrm{},b;2)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚑𝚌}(i,b;3)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚊𝚖𝚎}\mathrm{?}(b;1,4)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎}()`$. There are 32 context properties built as follows: {$`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(2)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(3)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$} $``$ {$`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})`$, $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}(i)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎}`$} $``$ {$`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}(i)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎}`$} $``$ {$`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}(i)`$, $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚎}`$}.

The specifications for the abstract solvers $`F_1^{}`$, $`F_2^{}`$, $`F_3^{}`$, $`F_4^{}`$ generated by the procedure from Section 3 are provided in Appendix A.

Solving the constraints (4)–(6) and $`\dot{c_0}=\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$, we obtain the following approximation for the set of feasible contexts: $`\dot{p}=\{\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{}),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(2)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{}),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(3)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{}),\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})\}`$. Since this $`\dot{p}`$ contains only $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})`$, the solution set of the linear constraints is always bounded sharply after termination of the composite solver.

We can figure out when the composite solver bounds the solution set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(\mathrm{}ib)`$ sharply, solving the constraints (4)–(6) and the constraints that say that we examine what happens after the Simplex method is called ($`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$ “is implied by” $`\dot{c_0}`$) and that the solution set is bounded sharply after termination ($`\dot{c}_{\mathrm{}}\dot{p}`$, $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})`$ “is implied by” $`\dot{c}_{\mathrm{}}`$). These constraints have 6 solutions. The first two assign $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)`$ to $`\dot{c}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and either $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)`$, or $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})`$ to $`\dot{c_0}`$. The other four assign $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(4)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}(i)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚘𝚔}(i)`$ to $`\dot{c}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and one of the 4 context properties that “imply” $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚘}(1)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚎}(i)`$ to $`\dot{c_0}`$. This means that, the composite solver bounds the solution set $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚘𝚕}(\mathrm{}ib)`$ sharply, if the interval constraints $`i`$ have an acyclic constraint graph.

## 5 Conclusion

We have presented a formalism for automatic analysis of composite solvers. This formalism provides a structure for expressing properties of the data store (context properties), a structure for specifying the behaviour of solvers (abstract solvers), a method for approximation of composite solvers by set constraints that can be efficiently solved by conventional set constraint solvers like . The ultimate goal (out of the scope of this paper) is to couple our analysis with the language for specification of composite solvers in the framework of the COCONUT project.

#### Acknowledgements

We thank Lucas Bordeaux from l’Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Nantes for the comments on quantified constraints.

#### Disclaimer

No solver has been damaged during the preparation of this document.

## Appendix A Specification of the example from Section 4.2

The constraints from the sharpness example are provided in Fig. 1 in the LogiCalc language . We recall its syntax/semantics. The LogiCalc language allows the user to specify constraints on integer numbers, tuples and finite sets. Tuples of sets, sets of tuples, sets of sets, etc. are allowed. The constraints are specified in terms of set inclusion $`\mathrm{𝚜𝚞𝚋𝚜𝚎𝚝}`$, membership $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚗}`$, equality $`=`$, and inequality $`<=`$. The left and right hand sides of the constraints are expressions built from variables, arithmetic and set operations, and specifications of finite set.

Finite sets are specified by either enumeration of the elements, or by their common property. For example,

```
x subset { 2, 3, 5, 7 };
y = { i * j | i in x; j in x; i + 1 <= j };
y = { 6, 10, 15 }

```

specify the set $`y=\{ij|ix,jx,i<j\}=\{6,10,15\}`$ and the set $`x=\{2,3,5\}`$ of their prime factors. Notice implicit existential quantification of the variables $`i`$ and $`j`$ that do not occur outside the specification of $`y`$. Notice that the equation $`y=\{ij|\mathrm{}\}`$ is, in fact, a constraint on $`x`$ and $`y`$.


text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The de Broglie–Bohm (dBB) interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT)  was invented with the intention to provide a causal interpretation of the conventional QM and QFT. Yet, the current form of the dBB interpretation of relativistic fermions still does not achieve this goal. First, the Dirac spinor is interpreted as a guiding wave only for one kind of corpuscles, making no difference between particle and antiparticle trajectories . Second, QFT is not a part of the current form of the dBB interpretation of fermions. There exists a causal interpretation of fermionic fields in terms of quantum rotators , but this interpretation works only for free fermionic fields. Besides, the causal interpretation of fermionic fields and the interpretation in terms of causal trajectories of corpuscles are viewed as two mutually incompatible interpretations. A recent approach , based on earlier work , partially resolves these problems, but still makes no difference between particle and antiparticle trajectories.

A solution of similar problems for bosons have recently been proposed in Ref. . In that paper, particle trajectories are determined by using the concept of particle current  and multiparticle wave functions that result from QFT. A causal interpretation of particle creation and destruction is given in terms of causally evolving fields and new hidden variables - particle effectivities. Both the particle positions and the fields are considered as beables (i.e., elements of reality). The statistical predictions of the theory are compatible with those of the standard bosonic QFT. However, despite the compatibility, the predictions of the theory are not equivalent to those of the standard bosonic QFT. Instead, the theory has predictions on the statistical distribution of particle positions, on which, in general, the standard bosonic QFT does not have clear predictions.

In this paper we generalize the results of Ref.  to fermionic fields. It should be considered mainly as a technical generalization. Consequently, the interpretational issues are not discussed in detail as they are already extensively discussed in Ref. . In Sec. 2 we give a causal interpretation of the Dirac equation in terms of particle and antiparticle trajectories. In Sec. 3 we use the conventional interacting fermionic QFT in the Schrödinger picture  to construct multiparticle wave functions and the equations for the corresponding particle and antiparticle trajectories. In Sec. 4, to each fermionic state represented by a Grassmann valued wave functional we attribute a corresponding c-number valued wave functional. In Sec. 5 we develop a general method of causal interpretation of an arbitrary quantum system in which a c-number valued wave function satisfies a Schrödinger equation. In Sec. 6 we use the results of Secs. 4 and 5 to construct a causal interpretation of fermionic QFT and a causal interpretation of particle creation and destruction, in a way similar to that for bosonic fields. The conclusions are drawn in Sec. 7.

## 2 CAUSAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DIRAC
EQUATION

The Dirac equation in the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is

$$(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m)\psi (x)=0,$$
(1)
where $`x=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)=(t,𝐱)`$. The general solution of (1) can be written as

$$\psi (x)=\psi ^{(P)}(x)+\psi ^{(A)}(x),$$
(2)
where the particle and antiparticle parts can be expanded as

$$\psi ^{(P)}(x)=\underset{k}{}b_ku_k(x),\psi ^{(A)}(x)=\underset{k}{}d_k^{}v_k(x),$$
(3)
respectively. Here $`u_k`$ ($`v_k`$) are positive (negative) frequency 4-spinors that, together, form a complete orthonormal set of solutions to (1). The label $`k`$ is an abbreviation for the set $`(𝐤,s)`$, where $`𝐤`$ is a 3-vector related to a Fourier expansion and $`s=\pm 1/2`$ is the spin label.

The interpretation of negative frequency spinors as antiparticles (i.e., positrons) above is usually considered as a part of second quantization, i.e., QFT. Indeed, QFT is discussed in the next section. However, by using the Stückelberg-Feynman theory, such an interpretation is meaningful even without explicit introduction of QFT .

By introducing the quantities

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(P)}(x,x^{})={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}u_k(x)u_k^{}(x^{}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(A)}(x,x^{})={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}v_k(x)v_k^{}(x^{}),`$ (4)
we can extract $`\psi ^{(P)}`$ and $`\psi ^{(A)}`$ from $`\psi `$ using

$`\psi ^{(P)}(x)={\displaystyle d^3x^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(P)}(x,x^{})\psi (x^{})},`$
$`\psi ^{(A)}(x)={\displaystyle d^3x^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(A)}(x,x^{})\psi (x^{})},`$ (5)
where $`t=t^{}`$. We introduce the particle and antiparticle currents defined as

$$j_\mu ^{(P)}=\overline{\psi }^{(P)}\gamma _\mu \psi ^{(P)},j_\mu ^{(A)}=\overline{\psi }^{(A)}\gamma _\mu \psi ^{(A)},$$
(6)
respectively, where $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\gamma _0`$. Since $`\psi ^{(P)}`$ and $`\psi ^{(A)}`$ separately satisfy the Dirac equation (1), the currents $`j_\mu ^{(P)}`$ and $`j_\mu ^{(A)}`$ are separately conserved: $`^\mu j_\mu ^{(P)}=^\mu j_\mu ^{(A)}=0`$. Therefore, we postulate that trajectories of particles and antiparticles are given by

$$\frac{d𝐱^{(P)}}{dt}=\frac{𝐣^{(P)}(t,𝐱^{(P)})}{j_0^{(P)}(t,𝐱^{(P)})},\frac{d𝐱^{(A)}}{dt}=\frac{𝐣^{(A)}(t,𝐱^{(A)})}{j_0^{(A)}(t,𝐱^{(A)})},$$
(7)
respectively, where $`𝐣=(j^1,j^2,j^3)`$.

## 3 PARTICLE AND ANTIPARTICLE TRAJECTORIES IN
FERMIONIC QFT

In fermionic QFT, the coefficients $`b_k`$ and $`d_k^{}`$ in (3) become anticommuting operators. The operators $`\widehat{b}_k^{}`$ ($`\widehat{d}_k^{}`$) create particles (antiparticles), while $`\widehat{b}_k`$ and $`\widehat{d}_k`$ annihilate them. In the Schrödinger picture, the field operators $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐱)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐱)`$ satisfy the anticommutation relations

$$\{\widehat{\psi }_a(𝐱),\widehat{\psi }_a^{}^{}(𝐱^{})\}=\delta _{aa^{}}\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱^{}),$$
(8)
while other anticommutators vanish. (Here $`a`$ is a spinor index.) These anticommutation relations can be represented by

$`\widehat{\psi }_a(𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\eta _a(𝐱)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta _a^{}(𝐱)}}\right],`$
$`\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\eta _a^{}(𝐱)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta _a(𝐱)}}\right],`$ (9)
where $`\eta _a(𝐱)`$ and $`\eta _a^{}(𝐱)`$ are anticommuting Grassmann numbers:

$$\{\eta _a(𝐱),\eta _a^{}(𝐱^{})\}=\{\eta _a^{}(𝐱),\eta _a^{}^{}(𝐱^{})\}=\{\eta _a(𝐱),\eta _a^{}^{}(𝐱^{})\}=0.$$
(10)
Next we introduce a complete orthonormal set of spinors $`u_k(𝐱)`$ and $`v_k(𝐱)`$. It is convenient to choose them to be equal to the spinors $`u_k(x)`$ and $`v_k(x)`$ at $`t=0`$, respectively. An arbitrary quantum state may be obtained by acting with the creation operators

$`\widehat{b}_k^{}={\displaystyle d^3x\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐱)u_k(𝐱)},`$
$`\widehat{d}_k^{}={\displaystyle d^3xv_k^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }(𝐱)},`$ (11)
on the vacuum $`|0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ represented by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0[\eta ,\eta ^{}]=N\mathrm{exp}\left\{d^3xd^3x^{}\eta ^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱,𝐱^{})\eta (𝐱^{})\right\}.$$
(12)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱,𝐱^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }^{(A)}(𝐱,𝐱^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^{(P)}(𝐱,𝐱^{})`$, $`N`$ is a constant chosen such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=1`$ and the scalar product is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=𝒟^2\eta \mathrm{\Psi }^{}[\eta ,\eta ^{}]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[\eta ,\eta ^{}].$$
(13)
In (13), $`𝒟^2\eta 𝒟\eta 𝒟\eta ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is dual (not simply the complex conjugate ) to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The vacuum is chosen such that $`\widehat{b}_k\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\widehat{d}_k\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$. A functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{}]`$ can be expanded as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{}]=\underset{K}{}c_K\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\eta ,\eta ^{}],$$
(14)
where the set $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_K\}`$ is a complete orthonormal set of Grassmann valued functionals. We choose this set such that each $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K`$ is proportional to a functional of the form $`\widehat{b}_{k_1}^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_{k_{n_P}}^{}\widehat{d}_{k_1^{}}^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_{k_{n_A}^{}}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, which means that each $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K`$ has a definite number $`n_P`$ of particles and a definite number $`n_A`$ of antiparticles. Therefore, we can also write (14) as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{}]=\underset{n_P,n_A=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}[\eta ,\eta ^{}].$$
(15)
The tilde on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}`$ denotes that these functionals, in contrast with $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K`$, do not have unit norm.

Time-dependent states $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t]`$ can be expanded as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}c_K(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\eta ,\eta ^{}]`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_P,n_A=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}[\eta ,\eta ^{},t].`$
The time dependence of the c-number coefficients $`c_K(t)`$ is governed by the functional Schrödinger equation

$$H[\widehat{\psi },\widehat{\psi }^{}]\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t]=i_t\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t].$$
(17)
Since the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is a hermitian operator, the norms

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{K}{}|c_K(t)|^2$$
(18)
of the states do not depend on time. In particular, if $`H`$ is the free Hamiltonian (i.e. the Hamiltonian that generates the second quantized free Dirac equation (1)), then the quantities $`|c_K(t)|`$ do not depend on time. This means that the average number of particles and antiparticles does not change with time when the interactions are absent.

Next we introduce the wave function of $`n_P`$ particles and $`n_A`$ antiparticles, denoted as

$$\psi _{n_P,n_A}\psi _{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n_P}d_1\mathrm{}d_{n_A}}(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_P},𝐲_1,\mathrm{},𝐲_{n_A},t).$$
(19)
It has $`n_P+n_A`$ spinor indices $`b_1,\mathrm{},d_{n_A}`$. For free fields, the (unnormalized) wave function can be calculated using the Heisenberg picture as

$$\psi _{n_P,n_A}=0|\widehat{\psi }_{b_1}^{(P)}(t,𝐱_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }_{d_{n_A}}^{(A)}(t,𝐲_{n_A})|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(20)
where $`\widehat{\psi }^{(P)}`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }^{(A)}`$ are extracted from $`\widehat{\psi }`$ with the aid of (2). In the general, interacting case, the wave function can be calculated using the Schrödinger picture as

$`\psi _{n_P,n_A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟^2\eta \mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}[\eta ,\eta ^{}]e^{i\phi _0(t)}}`$ (21)
$`\times \widehat{\psi }_{b_1}^{(P)}(𝐱_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }_{d_{n_A}}^{(A)}(𝐲_{n_A})\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t].`$
Here the phase $`\phi _0(t)`$ is defined by an expansion of the form of (16):

$$\widehat{U}(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_0[\eta ,\eta ^{}]=r_0(t)e^{i\phi _0(t)}\mathrm{\Psi }_0[\eta ,\eta ^{}]+\underset{(n_P,n_A)(0,0)}{}\mathrm{},$$
(22)
where $`r_0(t)0`$ and $`\widehat{U}(t)=U[\widehat{\psi },\widehat{\psi }^{},t]`$ is the unitary time-evolution operator that satisfies the Schrödinger equation (17). Note that only $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}`$ from the expansion (16) contributes to (21).

The current attributed to the $`i`$-th corpuscle (particle or antiparticle) in the wave function $`\psi _{n_P,n_A}`$ is

$$j_{\mu (i)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{\mu (i)}\chi \hfill & \text{for particles,}\hfill \\ \overline{\chi }\gamma _{\mu (i)}^T\chi \hfill & \text{for antiparticles,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
where we have used abbreviations

$$\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(i)}\chi \overline{\chi }_{a_1\mathrm{}a_i\mathrm{}a_n}(\mathrm{\Gamma })_{a_ia_i^{}}\chi _{a_1\mathrm{}a_i^{}\mathrm{}a_n},$$
(24)
$`\overline{\chi }_{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n_P}d_1\mathrm{}d_{n_A}}\psi _{b_1^{}\mathrm{}b_{n_P}^{}d_1\mathrm{}d_{n_A}}^{}(\gamma _0)_{b_1^{}b_1}\mathrm{}(\gamma _0)_{b_{n_P}^{}b_{n_P}},`$
$`\chi _{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n_P}d_1\mathrm{}d_{n_A}}(\gamma _0^T)_{d_1d_1^{}}\mathrm{}(\gamma _0^T)_{d_{n_A}d_{n_A}^{}}\psi _{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n_P}d_1^{}\mathrm{}d_{n_A}^{}}^{},`$ (25)
and the superscript $`T`$ denotes the transpose. Eq. (23) is the generalization of (6) for multiparticle wave functions. Therefore, the trajectory of the $`i`$-th corpuscle guided by the wave function $`\psi _{n_P,n_A}`$ is given by the generalization of (7)

$$\frac{d𝐱_{(i)}}{dt}=\frac{𝐣_{(i)}}{j_{0(i)}}.$$
(26)
As an example, consider the wave function describing one positron

$$\psi _a^{(A)}(x)=\psi _a(x)=0|\widehat{\psi }_a^{(A)}(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(27)
From (3) we find $`\chi =\gamma _0^T\psi `$, $`\overline{\chi }=\psi ^{}`$, so (23) reduces to

$$j_\mu ^{(A)}=\psi ^{}\gamma _\mu ^T\gamma _0^T\psi =\psi ^{(A)}\gamma _0\gamma _\mu \psi ^{(A)}=\overline{\psi }^{(A)}\gamma _\mu \psi ^{(A)}.$$
(28)
Note that the wave function that corresponds to the presence (not the absence) of a positron is $`\psi _a^{(A)}`$ (not $`\psi _a^{(A)}`$). In this sense, we were slightly imprecise in Sec. 2 by referring to $`\psi ^{(A)}`$ as the antiparticle part. Nevertheless, the expression (6) for the antiparticle current is consistent with (28). The wave function (27) satisfies the same equation of motion (Dirac equation) as the field operator $`\widehat{\psi }_a^{(A)}(x)`$. Consequently, the current (28) is conserved

$$^\mu j_\mu ^{(A)}=0,$$
(29)
and naturally interpreted as the positron current. In particular, the quantity $`j_0^{(A)}=\psi _a^{(A)}\psi _a^{(A)}`$ is naturally interpreted as the positron density, which can be demonstrated as follows. The operator of the positron density is

$$\widehat{n}^{(A)}(x)=\widehat{\psi }_a^{(A)}(x)\widehat{\psi }_a^{(A)}(x).$$
(30)
Let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be a free one positron state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{k}{}c_k\widehat{d}_k^{}|0,$$
(31)
where $`c_k`$ are some coefficients. The corresponding wave function is given by the complex conjugate of

$$\psi ^{(A)}(x)=\underset{k}{}c_k^{}v_k(x),$$
(32)
while the expectation value of the positron density is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{n}^{(A)}(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi _a^{(A)}(x)\psi _a^{(A)}(x).$$
(33)
Note that the positron wave function is not a coefficient of a decomposition of a quantum-field state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in eigenstates of the positron density operator. In the conventional interpretation of QFT, this would imply that the positron density cannot be interpreted as the positron probability density. Indeed, the conventional interpretation of QFT does not have definite predictions on the probabilities of particle and antiparticle positions . However, similarly to the bosonic case , our interpretation of fermions is an extension of the conventional interpretation. The extension consists in postulating the particle and antiparticle trajectories. Eq. (26), together with the conservation equation (29), provides the consistency of the probabilistic interpretation, i.e., the equivariance. If the positrons in a statistical ensemble are initially distributed with probabilities equal to $`\psi _a^{(A)}\psi _a^{(A)}`$, then (26) and (29) imply that the positrons will be distributed according to $`\psi _a^{(A)}\psi _a^{(A)}`$ at all times.

It is also important to emphasize that, similarly to the bosonic case , our extension is compatible with the conventional interpretation in the sense that any definite prediction of the conventional interpretation is also a prediction of our interpretation. With our extension, we do not deny any standard QFT effect that can be described purely in terms of quantum fields without explicit introduction of the concept of particles. In particular, although our extension does not attribute a particle trajectory to the vacuum, the standard measurable effects of the vacuum are not denied by our extension. The set of all predictions of the conventional interpretation is a subset of the set of all predictions of our interpretation.

## 4 BOSONIZATION OF FERMIONIC QFT

So far, we have not introduced any causal interpretation of the fermionic fields $`\widehat{\psi }`$ or $`\eta `$. Actually, these two quantities are not observables, so there is no need for a causal interpretation of them. However, we need a causal interpretation of the processes of creation and destruction of particles and antiparticles. For bosonic fields, this can be achieved by introducing a new causally evolving hidden variable - the effectivity of a particle  \- determined by the causal evolution of bosonic fields. Unfortunately, one cannot introduce a similar causal theory for the Grassmann fields $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, essentially because the quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[\eta ,\eta ^{},t]\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t]`$ is Grassmann valued, so, unlike to the bosonic case, one cannot interpret this quantity as a probability density. Therefore, in this section we formulate another representation of fermionic states, more similar to that of bosonic states. In Sec. 6, using the general method developed in Sec. 5, we use this representation to postulate a causal interpretation of fermionic QFT and a causal interpretation of the processes of creation and destruction of particles and antiparticles, similar to that of bosonic fields.

Note first that the notion of the scalar product can be generalized in such a way that it may be Grassmann valued , which allows us to write $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\eta ,\eta ^{},t]=\eta ,\eta ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ and

$$1=𝒟^2\eta |\eta ,\eta ^{}\eta ,\eta ^{}|.$$
(34)
Next, for each fermionic state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\eta ,\eta ^{}]`$ we introduce the corresponding bosonic state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\phi ,\phi ^{}]`$, with $`\phi (𝐱)`$ and $`\phi ^{}(𝐱)`$ being c-number 4-spinors. The bosonic states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K`$ are obtained in the same way as the corresponding fermionic states, by acting with the bosonic creation operators $`\widehat{b}_k^{}`$ and $`\widehat{d}_k^{}`$ (that satisfy the corresponding commutation relations) on the bosonic vacuum $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0[\phi ,\phi ^{}]`$. (For details on the bosonic functional methods, see e.g. Refs. ). Note that the set of bosonic states $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\phi ,\phi ^{}]\}`$ does not contain states obtained by acting with the same creation operator on the vacuum more than once (e.g. $`(\widehat{b}_k^{})^2|0`$) because such states vanish identically in the fermionic case. Therefore, the set of states $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\phi ,\phi ^{}]\}`$ is a complete orthonormal basis for a subspace of the whole space of all well-behaved functionals $`\mathrm{\Phi }[\phi ,\phi ^{}]`$. On this subspace, the unit operator can be represented as

$$1=\underset{K}{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_K\mathrm{\Psi }_K|.$$
(35)
We can also introduce the quantity

$`\phi ,\phi ^{}|\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}\phi ,\phi ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_K\mathrm{\Psi }_K|\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\phi ,\phi ^{}]\mathrm{\Psi }_K^{}[\eta ,\eta ^{}],`$
so we see that the sets $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\eta ,\eta ^{}]\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\phi ,\phi ^{}]\}`$ are two representations of the same orthonormal basis $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_K\}`$ for the same Hilbert space of fermionic states. In other words, the fermionic state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ can be represented as $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]=\phi ,\phi ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, which, by using (34), (36) and (16), can be expanded as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}c_K(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_K[\phi ,\phi ^{}],`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_P,n_A=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}[\phi ,\phi ^{},t].`$
By inserting the unit operator $`1=𝒟^2\phi |\phi ,\phi ^{}\phi ,\phi ^{}|`$ in (18), we see that the time-independent norm can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=𝒟^2\phi \mathrm{\Psi }^{}[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t].$$
(38)
Therefore, we interpret the quantity

$$\rho [\phi ,\phi ^{},t]=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]$$
(39)
as a positive definite probability density for spinors $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ to have space dependence $`\phi (𝐱)`$ and $`\phi ^{}(𝐱)`$, respectively, at time $`t`$.

The Schrödinger equation (17) can also be written in the $`\phi `$-representation as

$$\widehat{H}_\phi \mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]=i_t\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t].$$
(40)
The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_\phi `$ is defined by its action on wave functionals $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]`$. This action is determined by

$`\widehat{H}_\phi \mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,\phi ^{},t]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟^2\eta 𝒟^2\phi ^{}\phi ,\phi ^{}|\eta ,\eta ^{}}`$ (41)
$`\times \widehat{H}\eta ,\eta ^{}|\phi ^{},\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ^{},\phi ^{},t],`$
where $`\widehat{H}=H[\widehat{\psi },\widehat{\psi }^{}]`$ is the Hamiltonian in (17).

Having constructed the $`\phi `$-representation of fermionic QFT, we can introduce a causal interpretation of it. We first develop a general method of causal interpretation in the next section and then apply it to fermionic QFT in Sec. 6.

## 5 GENERAL METHOD OF CAUSAL INTERPRETATION

In this section we develop a general method of causal interpretation of a quantum system described by a c-number valued wave function that satisfies a Schrödinger equation. For simplicity, we study the case of $`n`$ degrees of freedom denoted by a real $`n`$-dimensional vector $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$, but we write all equations in a form that can be easily generalized to the case with an infinite number of the degrees of freedom.

The wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{\phi },t)`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$\widehat{H}\psi =i_t\psi ,$$
(42)
where $`\widehat{H}`$ is an arbitrary hermitian Hamiltonian (written in the $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$-representation). The quantity $`\rho =\psi ^{}\psi `$ is the probability density for the variables $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$. The corresponding average velocity is

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{\phi }(t)}{dt}=d^n\phi \rho (\stackrel{}{\phi },t)\stackrel{}{u}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t),$$
(43)
where $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ is defined as

$$\stackrel{}{u}=\mathrm{Re}i\frac{\psi ^{}[\widehat{H},\stackrel{}{\phi }]\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }.$$
(44)
We introduce the source $`J`$ defined as

$$J=\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{}(\rho \stackrel{}{u}).$$
(45)
For many physically interesting Hamiltonians, the source $`J`$ vanishes. However, in general, $`J`$ does not need to vanish. An example for which $`J0`$ is provided by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_\phi `$ defined by (41). We want to find the quantity $`\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)`$ that has the property (43)

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{\phi }(t)}{dt}=d^n\phi \rho (\stackrel{}{\phi },t)\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t),$$
(46)
but at the same time satisfies the equivariance property

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{}(\rho \stackrel{}{v})=0.$$
(47)
These two properties allow us to postulate a consistent causal interpretation of quantum mechanics in which $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ has definite values at each time $`t`$, determined by

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{\phi }}{dt}=\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t).$$
(48)
In particular, the equivariance (47) provides that the statistical distribution of the variables $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is given by $`\rho `$ for any time $`t`$, provided that it is given by $`\rho `$ for some initial time $`t_0`$. When $`J=0`$ then $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{u}`$, which corresponds to the usual dBB interpretation. The aim of this section is to generalize this to the general case $`J0`$.

Let us write the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ in the form

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{u}+\rho ^1\stackrel{}{},$$
(49)
where $`\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)`$ is the quantity that needs to be determined. From (47), we see that $`\stackrel{}{}`$ must be a solution of the equation

$$\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}=J.$$
(50)
Let $`\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)`$ be some particular solution of (50). Then

$$\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)=\stackrel{}{e}(t)+\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)$$
(51)
is also a solution for an arbitrary $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$-independent function $`\stackrel{}{e}(t)`$. Comparing (46) with (43), we see that we must require $`d^n\phi \stackrel{}{}=0`$. This fixes the function $`\stackrel{}{e}(t)`$ to be

$$\stackrel{}{e}(t)=V^1d^n\phi \stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{\phi },t),$$
(52)
where $`Vd^n\phi `$. It remains to choose the particular solution $`\stackrel{}{E}`$. We choose it such that $`\stackrel{}{E}=0`$ when $`J=0`$. Eqs. (52) and (51) then imply that $`\stackrel{}{}=0`$ when $`J=0`$, i.e. that $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{u}`$ when $`J=0`$. There is still some arbitrariness in choosing the particular solution $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, so we proceed in a way that seems to be the simplest one. We take $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ to be a gradient of a scalar function

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(53)
so $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the Poisson equation

$$\stackrel{}{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=J.$$
(54)
It is convenient to solve (54) by using the Green-function method. By taking the solution to have the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)=d^n\phi ^{}G(\stackrel{}{\phi },\stackrel{}{\phi }^{})J(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{},t),$$
(55)
we see from (54) that $`G`$ satisfies

$$\stackrel{}{}^2G(\stackrel{}{\phi },\stackrel{}{\phi }^{})=\delta ^n(\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{\phi }^{}).$$
(56)
The solution of (56) is most easily expressed as a Fourier transform

$$G(\stackrel{}{\phi },\stackrel{}{\phi }^{})=\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{\phi }^{})}}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}.$$
(57)
To eliminate the factor $`1/(2\pi )^n`$, we introduce a new integration variable $`\stackrel{}{\chi }=\stackrel{}{k}/2\pi `$. In this way, (55) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{\phi },t)=d^n\chi d^n\phi ^{}\frac{e^{i2\pi \stackrel{}{\chi }(\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{}{\phi }^{})}}{(2\pi )^2\stackrel{}{\chi }^2}J(\stackrel{}{\phi }^{},t),$$
(58)
which is written in the form appropriate for a generalization to an infinite number of the degrees of freedom.

The formalism above can also be easily generalized to the case in which the integration measure in (43) is not simply $`d^n\phi `$, but a more general expression of the form $`d^n\phi \mu (\stackrel{}{\phi },t)`$. In some cases, $`\mu `$ is a Jacobian that can be eliminated by a redefinition of the integration variables $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$. If this is not the case, $`\mu `$ can always be absorbed into a redefinition of the density $`\rho \mu \rho `$.

There is one additional tacit assumption in our general analysis that does not need to be satisfied in an even more general situation: the components $`\phi _i`$ of the vector $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ are assumed to be continuous parameters. If these parameters were discrete instead of continuous, then Eq. (43) would contain a summation over allowed values of $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ instead of the integration over them. Examples of discrete variables are the $`z`$-component of spin and the momentum of a particle confined in a finite volume. There exists a consistent causal interpretation for these two examples , but it is not clear how to introduce a general systematic method of causal interpretation of discrete quantum variables. Formally, one might reduce the summation to an integration by introducing the integration measure in which the function $`\mu `$ is essentially a sum of $`\delta `$-functions. However, owing to the singular nature of $`\delta `$-functions, it is not clear that this would lead to a mathematically well-defined causal theory (see e.g. Ref. ). A recent approach  suggests a solution of this problem based on smearing of the $`\delta `$-functions, but this approach does not seem to be unique. Therefore, the formulation of a general method of causal interpretation of discrete quantum variables is still a challenge. Fortunately, we do not need it in this paper.

## 6 CAUSAL INTERPRETATION OF FERMIONIC QFT

We are now ready to formulate a causal interpretation of fermionic QFT. In Sec. 4 we have been working with complex spinors $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$, having complex components $`\phi _a`$ and $`\phi _a^{}`$, respectively. On the other hand, in Sec. 5 we have developed a general method of causal interpretation for real variables. Therefore, in this section we first introduce real spinor components $`\phi _a^1`$ and $`\phi _a^2`$ defined by $`\phi _a=(\phi _a^1+i\phi _a^2)/\sqrt{2}`$, so that

$$\phi _a^1=\frac{\phi _a^{}+\phi _a}{\sqrt{2}},\phi _a^2=i\frac{\phi _a^{}\phi _a}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(59)
Each functional of the complex spinors $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ can also be viewed as a functional of the real spinors $`\phi ^1`$ and $`\phi ^2`$. To simplify the notation, when appropriate, we denote the functionals of the form of $`A[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t,𝐱]`$ by a shorter simbol $`A[𝐱]`$.

Following the general method developed in Sec. 5, we introduce the quantity

$$u_a^r[𝐱]=\mathrm{Re}i\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}[\widehat{H}_\phi ,\phi _a^r(𝐱)]\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(60)
where $`r=1,2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t]`$. Next, we introduce the source

$$J=\frac{\rho }{t}+\underset{a,r}{}d^3x\frac{\delta (\rho u_a^r[𝐱])}{\delta \phi _a^r(𝐱)},$$
(61)
where $`\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Introducing the notation

$$\alpha \beta \underset{a,r}{}d^3x\alpha _a^r(𝐱)\beta _a^r(𝐱),$$
(62)
Eq. (58) generalizes to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t]=𝒟^2\chi 𝒟^2\phi ^{}\frac{e^{i2\pi \chi (\phi \phi ^{})}}{(2\pi )^2\chi \chi }J[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t].$$
(63)
Introducing the quantities

$$E_a^r[𝐱]=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}{\delta \phi _a^r(𝐱)},$$
(64)
$$e_a^r(t,𝐱)=V^1𝒟^2\phi E_a^r[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t,𝐱],$$
(65)
where $`V𝒟^2\phi `$, the corresponding velocity is given by

$$v_a^r[𝐱]=u_a^r[𝐱]+\rho ^1(e_a^r(t,𝐱)+E_a^r[𝐱]).$$
(66)
Now we introduce hidden variables $`\phi ^1(t,𝐱)`$ and $`\phi ^2(t,𝐱)`$. The causal evolution of these hidden variables is given by

$$\frac{\phi _a^r(t,𝐱)}{t}=v_a^r[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t,𝐱],$$
(67)
where it is understood that the right-hand side is calculated at $`\phi ^r(𝐱)=\phi ^r(t,𝐱)`$.

In analogy with ordinary bosonic fields , we also introduce the effectivity $`e_{n_P,n_A}`$ of the particles guided by the wave function $`\psi _{n_P,n_A}`$, given by

$$e_{n_P,n_A}[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t]=\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t]|^2}{{\displaystyle \underset{n_P^{},n_A^{}}{}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P^{},n_A^{}}[\phi ^1,\phi ^2,t]|^2}.$$
(68)
Since the physical meaning of the effectivity is discussed in detail in Ref.  for ordinary bosonic fields, here we only note the final results valid also for the bosonic representation of the fermionic states above. In an ideal experiment in which the number of particles is measured, different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}`$ functionals do not overlap in the $`(\phi ^1,\phi ^2)`$ space. Consequently, the fields $`\phi ^1`$ and $`\phi ^2`$ necessarily enter one and only one of the “channels” $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}`$. In this case, the effectivity (68) of the corresponding particles is equal to 1, while that of all other particles guided by other wave functions $`\psi _{n_P^{},n_A^{}}`$ is equal to 0. The effect is the same as if the wave functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ “collapsed” into one of the states $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n_P,n_A}`$ with a definite number of particles and antiparticles. This provides a causal description of the creation of particles guided by $`\psi _{n_P,n_A}`$ and the destruction of all other particles guided by other wave functions $`\psi _{n_P^{},n_A^{}}`$.

Note that both the corpuscle (particle and antiparticle) positions and the commuting fields $`\phi ^1`$, $`\phi ^2`$ are the preferred hidden variables that describe the elements of reality associated with fermions. This would not be possible if the corpuscle positions were described by hermitian operators that do not commute with $`\phi ^1`$, $`\phi ^2`$. However, just as in the relativistic bosonic case , there are no hermitian corpuscle-position operators associated with the corpuscle positions. At the level of first-quantization formalism, the absence of the hermitian corpuscle-position operators is a consequence of the fact that the separate sets $`\{u_k(𝐱)\}`$ and $`\{v_k(𝐱)\}`$ are not complete, so one cannot construct a $`\delta `$-function as a linear combination of the functions of only one set. Similarly, at the level of second-quantization formalism, the are no 1-particle states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(P)}`$ with the property $`\widehat{n}^{(P)}(𝐱)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(P)}=\delta ^3(𝐱)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(P)}`$ (and analogously for 1-antiparticle states). These facts are also related to the already mentioned fact that the conventional theory, in general, does not give definite predictions on the probabilities of corpuscle positions. In our theory, the corpuscle positions correspond to an extension of the conventional theory. As discussed in Sec. 3, the consistency of the probabilistic interpretation of particle and antiparticle wave functions rests on the fact that the probabilities correspond only to an effective statistical description of the underlying deterministic Bohmian trajectories.

## 7 CONCLUSION

In this paper, three new results related to the causal interpretation of fermions have been obtained. First, the usual causal interpretation of the Dirac equation is modified such that it makes a difference between particle and antiparticle trajectories. Second, fermionic interacting QFT is used to construct the multiparticle wave functions that describe particle and antiparticle trajectories in systems with many particles. Third, a causal interpretation of fermionic fields themselves, based on bosonization of fermionic fields, is constructed and used to formulate a causal interpretation of particle creation and destruction.

Besides this progress in the causal interpretation of fermions, a general method of causal interpretation is developed. It can be applied to any quantum system described by a c-number valued wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{\phi },t)`$ satisfying a Schrödinger equation, provided that the c-number parameters $`\phi _i`$ are continuous.

Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to R. Tumulka for valuable comments and discussions and to an anonymous referee for valuable critical remarks that improved the paper. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.