1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %%%  (December 2003)  

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

4:  

5: \documentclass{iopart}

6: \usepackage{epsfig}

7: \usepackage{latexsym}

8: \begin{document} 

9:  

10: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}} 

11: \newcommand{\half}{\mbox{\small $\frac{1}{2}$}} 

12: \newcommand{\mbf}[1]{{\mathbf #1}} 

13: \newcommand{\mpg}[3][b]{\begin{minipage}[#1]{#2}{#3}\end{minipage}}

14:  

15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

16:  

17: \title{Consolidating boundary methods 

18: for finding the eigenstates of billiards}

19:  

20: \author{Doron Cohen$^{1}$, Natasha Lepore$^{2}$ and Eric J. Heller$^{2,3}$} 

21:   

22: \address{ 

23: \mbox{$^1$ Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, 

24:       Beer-Sheva, Israel.} \\

25: \mbox{$^2$ Department of Physics, Harvard University, 

26:       Cambridge, Massachusetts.} \\ 

27: \mbox{$^3$ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, 

28:       Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.} \\ 

29: } 

30:  

31:  

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

33:  

34: \begin{abstract} 

35: The plane-wave decomposition method (PWDM), a widely used

36: means of numerically finding eigenstates of the Helmholtz equation in 

37: billiard systems is described as a variant of the mathematically 

38: well-established boundary integral method (BIM). A new unified 

39: framework encompassing the two methods is discussed. Furthermore, 

40: a third numerical method, 

41: which we call the Gauge Freedom Method (GFM) is derived from the BIM 

42: equations. This opens the way to further improvements in eigenstate

43: search techniques. 

44: \end{abstract} 

45:  

46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

47:  

48: %\maketitle 

49: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

50:  

51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

52: \section{Introduction} 

53:  

54: Solving the Helmholtz equation within a domain 

55: given Dirichlet boundary conditions 

56: is of great interest to both physicists \cite{sto} and

57: engineers. Firstly, the Helmholtz equation is the simplest 

58: example of a \mbox{\em wave equation}. Furthermore, this 

59: equation may be used to describe acoustics waves, microwave 

60: systems, and in particular the wavefunction 

61: of a quantal particle inside nano-scale devices \cite{datta}  

62: such as quantum-dots, where the motion of the electrons 

63: can be regarded as a free~motion within a box. For this reason   

64: it has become a prototype problem in studies of quantum chaos. 

65: 

66: Of particular interest are the wavefunctions $\Psi(x)$ of a

67: stationary particle in a two-dimensional box (a so-called 

68: billiard system). These wavefunctions are 

69: solutions of the homogeneous Helmholtz equation 

70: \mbox{${\cal H}\Psi(x) = 0$}, where 

71: the differential operator ${\cal H}$ is defined as 

72: % 

73: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e1} 

74: {\cal H} = -\nabla^2 - k^2. 

75: \end{eqnarray} 

76: % 

77: Note that for the special case $k=0$, the Helmholtz equation 

78: reduces to Laplace's equation. Given a closed boundary 

79: we can ask whether this equation has a non-trivial solution 

80: that satisfies Dirichlet boundary conditions $\Psi(x)=0$. 

81: 

82: Two main numerical strategies have been suggested to date in the 

83: literature in order to find the eigenstates of the Helmholtz equation 

84: (for more comprehensive reviews and references, see 

85: for example \cite{kuttler,backer,barnett}).  

86: The first strategy can be described as a `Laplacian diagonalization'.  A basis 

87: is selected such that the functions it contains satisfy the Dirichlet 

88: boundary conditions. For example, in some cases one can use conformal 

89: mapping to determine a basis \cite{conformal} (and see also 

90: \cite{reichl}). The Laplacian operator is then written in this 

91: basis and diagonalized. Numerically, some truncation 

92: is required, and the diagonalization only determines all the 

93: eigenstates up to some maximum wavenumber $k_{\tbox{max}}$.  

94: Thus, the Laplacian diagonalization strategy is inherently limited, 

95: and can not be used for the purpose of finding high-lying eigenstates. 

96:  

97: 

98: The second numerical strategy, which is the object of this paper, can be 

99: described as a `boundary approach'. This strategy is based on the 

100: observation that the eigenfunctions are completely determined by their 

101: behavior at the boundary. 

102: The boundary methods use basis functions that satisfy the Helmholtz equation 

103: inside the billiard at fixed $k$. A linear combination of 

104: the basis functions is then

105: selected such that the boundary conditions are satisfied. 

106: Thus, in order to find the eigenstates, one only needs to study the 

107: small $k$~window that contains the energy range of interest. 

108: Therefore the method is naturally suitable for the purpose of 

109: finding high-lying eigenstates. 

110: For 2D~billiards, the Laplacian diagonalization 

111: requires 2D~grid calculations. This is a heavy numerical task.  The 

112: boundary approach, on the other hand reduces the calculations to a 

113: 1D~boundary grid. 

114: 

115:   

116: In the quantum chaos community, two boundary methods are commonly 

117: employed. The first one is referred to as the boundary integral method 

118: (BIM) \cite{berry1}, while the other is what we call here 

119: the decomposition method (DEM), of which the 

120: plane-wave decomposition method (PWDM) \cite{heller2}

121: is a special case. Extensions of the standard PWDM have 

122: been used in \cite{vergini,VS} and in \cite{barnett}. 

123: 

124: Usually, the BIM and the PWDM are considered to be two

125: independent self-contained procedures. Several studies

126: have been done in order to compare their capabilities \cite{li}. 

127: While the BIM equation is exact, its convergence is very slow 

128: (power law in the number $b$ of discretization points per half-wavelength). 

129: On the other hand while the PWDM is mathematically 

130: limited (e.g. the maximal $b$ is semiclassically determined), 

131: it is still found to be extremely efficient in practice. 

132: Hence there is definitely a need to develop hybrid boundary methods. 

133: 

134: 

135: % However, Li and coworkers plotted the

136: % PWDM tension versus shape for several billiards with a shape parameters 

137: % that varied the dynamics from integrable to chaotic. They 

138: % confirmed that the accuracy of PWDM is reduced according to 

139: % the amount of chaos in the system. Vega {\it et al.} \cite{vega}

140: % computed the number of states generated by the PWDM in polygonal 

141: % billiards, and found that a significant fraction of these were missing 

142: % when the results were compared to expected numbers given by Weyl's law.

143: % Finally, for non-convex shapes, the BIM is plagued with

144: % exterior chords while the PWDM fails completely (see\cite{li, boris}).

145: 

146: In the present paper, we adopt a new point of view through 

147: which we regard the BIM and the DEM as sequences of 

148: four independent steps. By doing so, we are going to make the observation 

149: that the DEM and the BIM are strongly related: {\em The two procedures

150: are based on the diagonalization of literally the same matrix!}

151: As a bridge between them, we will highlight an intermediate strategy

152: which we call the gauge-freedom method (GFM). In a follow-up paper,

153: this framework will lead the way to improved eigenstate 

154: search techniques combining the strengths of the two boundary

155: methods \cite{bmi}.

156:  

157: Our unified description of the different boundary methods 

158: can be summarized by the following set of four steps that are 

159: common to the BIM and the DEM, and as we will show later, to the GFM: 

160: %

161: %\begin{minipage}{10cm} 

162: \begin{itemize} 

163: \item Choice of a set of basis functions $F_j(x;k)$. 

164: \item Definition of the Fredholm matrix $\mbf{A}_{js}(k)$. 

165: \item Procedure for construction of the wavefunction $\Psi_r$. 

166: \item Definition of the quantization measure $S(k)$. 

167: \end{itemize} 

168: %\end{minipage} 

169:  

170:   

171: The first step consists of selecting a set of basis 

172: functions $F_j(x;k)$ labeled $j=1..N$. 

173: All boundary methods rely on basis functions that 

174: satisfy the Helmholtz equation {\em inside} the billiard. 

175: Thus, a superposition of such basis functions is an 

176: eigenfunction if it vanishes along the boundary. 

177: The choices of bases that correspond to the PWDM, 

178: to the primitive version of the BIM and to the simplest 

179: variation of the GFM are as follows:  

180: % 

181: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e2} 

182: F_j(x;k) \ \ =& \ \ \cos(\phi_j + k {n}_j \cdot {x}) 

183: \ \ & \ \ \ \ \mbox{PWDM} 

184: \\ \label{e3} 

185: F_j(x;k) \ \ =& \ \ Y_0(k|{x}-{x}_j|) 

186: \ \ & \ \ \ \ \mbox{Y0-BIM} 

187: \\ \label{e4} 

188: F_j(x;k) \ \ =& \ \ J_0(k|{x}-{x}_j|) 

189: \ \ & \ \ \ \ \mbox{J0-GFM} 

190: \end{eqnarray} 

191:  

192:  

193: For the purpose of the numerical treatment we represent 

194: the boundary by a set of points $x_s$ with $s = 1\cdots M$. 

195: In practice, we choose a set of $M$ equally spaced points, 

196: so that the spacing is $\Delta s = L/M$ where $L$ is the 

197: perimeter of the billiard. Depending on details of

198: the numerical strategy, 

199: the number of points along the boundary is either taken to 

200: be equal to the number of basis functions ($M=N$), 

201: or it may be larger ($M>N$). The Fredholm matrix is defined as 

202: % 

203: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e5} 

204: \mbf{A}_{js}(k) \ \ \equiv \ \ F_j(x_s;k) 

205: \end{eqnarray} 

206: % 

207: Given $k$, one may perform the singular value decomposition (SVD) 

208: of the matrix $\mbf{A}$. 

209: The smallest singular value is the

210: one which we care about. If it is a minimum at a given $k$, 

211: then the billiard system is likely to have an eigenvalue at that energy.

212: 

213: 

214: In the third step, the left and right

215: eigenvectors of the smallest singular value 

216: ($\Phi_s$ and ${\mathsf C}_j$, resp.) 

217: are used to construct a wavefunction $\Psi_r$ through a linear 

218: transformation. We select a grid of points $X_r$ on which 

219: the wavefunction $\Psi_r \equiv \Psi(X_r)$ is calculated. 

220: In the DEM, the left eigenvector ${\mathsf C}$ is used for

221: the purpose of this construction, and the linear transformation 

222: which is applied is: 

223: % 

224: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e6} 

225: \Psi_r = \sum_j {\mathsf C}_j \mbf{F}_{jr} 

226: \end{eqnarray} 

227: % 

228: where $\mbf{F}_{jr} \equiv F_j(X_r;k)$. 

229: Note that ${\mathsf C}$ contains the expansion coefficients 

230: of $\Psi(x)$ in the chosen basis $F_j(x;k)$. 

231: % 

232: For the BIM, the right eigenvector $\Phi$ 

233: is used in order to build the wavefunction, 

234: and the linear transformation in this case is 

235: % 

236: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e7} 

237: \Psi_r = \sum_s \mbf{G}_{rs} \Phi_s, 

238: \end{eqnarray} 

239: % 

240: where $\mbf{G}_{rs}$ is the discretized version of 

241: the Green function. Thus, the vector $\Phi_s$ 

242: represents a `charge' that is distributed along the boundary.  

243:  

244: In the final step, a measure $S(k)$ is defined such that 

245: $S(k)=0$ if $k$ is an eigenvalue and $S(k)>0$ otherwise. 

246: In practice, the eigenvalues are determined by searching for the local 

247: minima of $S(k)$. By construction, the wavefunction which was built 

248: in step three satisfies the Helmholtz equation inside the boundary. 

249: Therefore, the most natural choice of $S(k)$ is the tension,

250: the sum of the square of the wavefunction along the boundary. 

251: The tension is thus a

252: measure for the roughness of the constructed $\Psi(x)$ 

253: along the boundary. This definition of $S(k)$ is 

254: traditionally used with the PWDM. 

255: Other possibilities for the measure include 

256: the smallest singular value, and the Fredholm 

257: determinant of $\mbf{A}$. These two latter choices 

258: of $S(k)$ are the ones that are usually associated with the BIM. 

259: In Sec.~\ref{IV} we discuss the mathematical equivalence 

260: of the three possible measures, and compare 

261: their respective numerical effectiveness. 

262:  

263:  

264:  

265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

266: \subsection{Outline} 

267: 

268: In Sec.~\ref{II}, we give a concise presentation 

269: of the BIM and the related GFM. Our derivation of 

270: the BIM equation contains some significant 

271: improvements over previous ones. Most

272: importantly, it naturally leads to the 

273: existence the GFM.

274: Furthermore, we have succeeded in avoiding the use 

275: of the complicated "regularized" method of images, 

276: which was the major ingredient in the derivation 

277: of Ref.~\cite{li}. 

278:  

279: Strategies for constructing the wavefunction 

280: are discussed in Sec.~\ref{III}. An explanation of 

281: the Green function method is given, 

282: as well as a critical discussion of the DEM and 

283: its numerical variants. 

284:  

285: Sec.~\ref{IV} explores the practicality of using different 

286: choices for the quantization measure. In particular, 

287: it is demonstrated that a tension measure can be defined 

288: not only for the PWDM, but for the case of the BIM as well.  

289: An important issue emerges as to whether the 

290: quantization measures can be used as to determine

291: the error in the bulk wavefunction.  

292: We address this issue, and also make a comparison 

293: between the numerical accuracies of the BIM and of the PWDM. 

294: 

295: Sec.\ref{V} explains how the GFM bridges between 

296: the BIM and the DEM. It is found that for 

297: any DEM, an associate GFM exists, whereas the 

298: inverse statement is not true. 

299:   

300: 

301: The shape that we have studied numerically is presented in Fig.1. 

302: We have used the cornerless, generic 'Pond' shape in order to avoid 

303: the range of problems that arise with more complicated geometries. 

304: These problems are the subject of a follow-up study \cite{bmi}, 

305: where we suggest mixed BIM/DEM methods for finding eigenfunctions. 

306: This is done using the above theoretical framework, 

307: while regarding the 'Pond' shape as a reference against which to judge 

308: the effectiveness of our efforts. Another direction of 

309: research is related to billiards in magnetic fields \cite{klaus}. 

310:   

311: For the convenience of the reader, our 

312: numerical notations are concentrated in Table~1. 

313: Further information about Fig.~1, Table~1, 

314: and the numerical analysis is integrated within 

315: the main text. 

316:  

317:  

318:  

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

321: \begin{table} 

322: \begin{tabular}{|lll|} 

323: %

324: \hline 

325: \ & \ & \\ 

326: $x_s$ &=& vector of boundary points \hspace*{3cm} \\ 

327: $x_{{\mathsf s}}$ &=& vector of outer-boundary points \\ 

328: $X_r$ &=& vector of interior grid points \\ 

329: $X_0$ &=& randomly selected interior point \\ 

330: \ & \ & \\ 

331: $\Psi_r$ &=& wavefunction on the grid points \\

332: $\Psi_s$ &=& wavefunction on the boundary points \\ 

333: $\Phi_s$ &=& `charge' along the boundary \\ 

334: \ & \ & \\ 

335: $\| \Psi_r \|$ &=& norm of the wavefunction (see Sec.III) \\ 

336: $\| \Psi_s \|$ &=& tension of the wavefunction (see Sec.III) \\ 

337: \ & \ &  \\ 

338: $n(s)$  &=& unit normal at the boundary point $x_s$ \\ 

339: \  & \ & \\ 

340: $\mbf{w}_{s}$  &=& $(1/(2k^2)) \ n(s) \cdot  x_s $ \\ 

341: \  & \ & \\ 

342: $\mbf{G}_{rs}$ &=& $G(X_r,x_s)$ \\ 

343: \  & \ & \\ 

344: $\mbf{A}_{j0}$ &=& $F_j(X_0;k)$ \\ 

345: \  & \ & \\ 

346: $\mbf{A}_{js}$ &=& $F_j(x_s;k)$ \\ 

347: \  & \ & \\ 

348: $\mbf{D}_{js}$ &=& $\partial F_j(x_s;k)$ \\ 

349: \ & \ &  \\ 

350: $\mbf{B}_{ij}$ &=& $\Delta s \ \sum_s \mbf{w}_s \mbf{D}_{is}\mbf{D}_{js} 

351:                     \ \ = \ \ 

352:             \Delta s \ (\mbf{D}\mbf{w}\mbf{D}^{\dag})_{ij}$ \\ 

353: \  & \ & \\ 

354: $\mbf{T}_{ij}$ &=& $\Delta s \ \sum_s \mbf{A}_{is} \mbf{A}_{js} 

355:                     \ \ \ \ = \ \ 

356:             \Delta s \ (\mbf{A} \mbf{A}^{\dag})_{ij}$  \\ 

357: \  & \ & \\ 

358: \hline 

359: % 

360: \end{tabular} 

361: % 

362: \caption{Notations} 

363: \end{table} 

364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

366:  

367:  

368:  

369:  

370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

372: \section{The BIM and the GFM} 

373: \label{II} 

374:  

375:  

376: The gist of the BIM is that, 

377: from the knowledge of the gradient of the wavefunction 

378: on the boundary and from Green's theorem, it is possible 

379: to find the value of the wavefunction everywhere 

380: inside the billiard. We give a derivation of this method 

381: in this section. This procedure will lead us naturally 

382: to the existence of the GFM.  

383: 

384: The free space Green function $G(x,x')$ is defined 

385: by the equation ${\cal H}G(x,x')=\delta(x-x')$. 

386: The most general solution can be written as 

387: % 

388: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e8} 

389: G(x,x') \ \ = \ \ - \frac{1}{4} Y_0(k|x-x'|) 

390: \ \ + \ \ {\cal C}(x,x') 

391: \end{eqnarray} 

392: % 

393: where ${\cal C}(x,x')$ is any solution of 

394: the homogeneous equation ${\cal H}{\cal C}(x,x')=0$. 

395: Note that in the electrostatic limit $k\rightarrow0$ 

396: we have $G(x,x')=-(1/(2\pi))\ln(r) + {\cal C}$, 

397: where ${\cal C}$ is a constant~\cite{rmrk2}. 

398: We shall refer to the choice of ${\cal C}(x,x')$ 

399: as gauge freedom. This term is 

400: at the core of the GFM.

401:  

402: By the definition of the Green function, it follows 

403: that a solution of the generalized Poisson-Laplace (GPL) 

404: equation ${\cal H}\Psi(x) = \rho(x)$ is~\cite{rmrk3} 

405: % 

406: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e9} 

407: \Psi(x) \ \ = \ \ \int G(x,x')\rho(x') dx' 

408: \end{eqnarray} 

409: % 

410: We refer to $\rho(x)$ as the `charge density', 

411: by analogy to its electrostatic equivalent. 

412: 

413: We shall use the notation $\Phi(s)$ in order to refer 

414: to the (surface) charge density upon the boundary. 

415: In the latter case, the equation above reduces to 

416: % 

417: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e10} 

418: \Psi(x) \ \ = \ \ \oint G(x,x(s)) \Phi(s) ds 

419: \end{eqnarray} 

420: % 

421: where $s$ parameterizes the boundary. 

422: 

423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

424: \subsection{The BIM} 

425:  

426: Let us assume that $k$ is an eigenvalue of the billiard. 

427: In such a case, there exists a non-vanishing $\Psi(x)$ 

428: inside the boundary that satisfies $\Psi(x)=0$ on the boundary. 

429: It can be shown from Green's theorem that the interior 

430: wavefunction satisfies Eq.(\ref{e10}) with 

431: % 

432: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e11} 

433: \Phi(s) \ = \  \partial_{-} \Psi(x(s)) \ \equiv \ 

434: \lim_{x\uparrow x(s)} n(s)\cdot\nabla \Psi(x) 

435: \end{eqnarray} 

436: % 

437: where $n(s)$ is the outward pointing normal at point $s$, and 

438: $\partial_{-}$ is used for the normal derivative evaluated inside

439: of the billiard walls. 

440: 

441: In electrostatics, it is known that forcing the 

442: scalar potential to be zero on the boundary induces 

443: a boundary charge. From Green's theorem,

444: the induced charge is proportional to the normal

445: component of the electric field. Here the wavefunction 

446: acts as the equivalent of the scalar potential. Similarly 

447: to the electrostatic case, there exists an induced

448: `boundary charge', that is in this case proportional 

449: to the normal derivative of the wavefunction.

450:  

451: The BIM is based on the fact that if an eigenstate exists, 

452: then there also exists a charge density $\Phi(s)$ given by 

453: Eq.(\ref{e11}), such that Eq.(\ref{e10}) 

454: is satisfied. On the boundary, Eq.(\ref{e10}) yields 

455: % 

456: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e12} 

457: \int G(x(j),x(s)) \Phi(s) ds  \ \ = \ \ 0 

458: \ \ \ \mbox{[BIM equation]} 

459: \end{eqnarray} 

460: %

461: Thus, having an eigenstate $\Psi(x)$ implies 

462: that the kernel $G(x(j),x(s))$ has an eigenvector 

463: $\Phi(s)$ that corresponds to a zero eigenvalue.

464: Fig.2 shows an example 

465: of a boundary charge density $\Phi(s)$ that was found 

466: via the BIM equation (for more details, see next section). 

467: The converse 

468: is also true: Once a non-trivial charge density is 

469: found that satisfies Eq.(\ref{e12}), the associated

470: eigenstate can be constructed using Eq.(\ref{e10}).

471: We discuss this construction issue in more details 

472: in the next section.  

473: 

474: For numerical purposes, it is convenient to use the 

475: discretized version Eq.(\ref{e7}) of the above formula. 

476: The BIM equation can then be 

477: written as the matrix equation $\mbf{A}\Phi=0$, 

478: where $\mbf{A}_{js} = G(x(j),x(s))$. The gauge 

479: term ${\cal C}(x,x')$ allows some freedom in the

480: determination of the Green function.

481: Using the Neumann Bessel function $Y_0(k|x-x'|)$ 

482: for the Green function, one obtains the 

483: matrix $\mbf{A}_{js}$ as defined 

484: by Eq.(\ref{e5}) with~(\ref{e3}). 

485: Another possibility is to use the Hankel Bessel 

486: function $H_0(k|x-x'|)$. Accordingly, we 

487: will distinguish between the Y0-BIM version 

488: and the H0-BIM version. We shall later discuss 

489: the numerical implication of using the 

490: complex $H(k|x-x'|)$ rather than the real $Y(k|x-x'|)$. 

491:  

492: The primitive BIM uses Eq.(\ref{e12}) literally. 

493: However, this version of the BIM is not the one that 

494: is generally favored because  $G(x(j),x(s))$ 

495: is singular for $x(j)\rightarrow x(s)$, 

496: leading to some difficulty in determining the diagonal 

497: matrix elements of $\mbf{A}_{js}$. 

498: Therefore, other versions of the BIM 

499: have become popular (see Appendices B,C). 

500: 

501: 

502: 

503: 

504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

505: \subsection{The GFM} 

506:  

507: The GFM is a different strategy to obtain the 

508: charge density $\Phi(s)$. Rather than 

509: using the BIM equation Eq.~(\ref{e12}) 

510: or one of its variants, a gauge freedom argument 

511: is invoked in order to introduce 

512: a new type of equation (Eq.(\ref{e13}) below). 

513: % 

514: It is clear that Eq.(\ref{e12}) should be 

515: valid for {\em any} choice of gauge. 

516: In other words, Eq.(\ref{e12}) should be 

517: satisfied for any Green function (Eq.(\ref{e8})), 

518: whatever the choice of ${\cal C}(x,x')$. 

519: Thus, for a given ${\cal C}(x,x')$, 

520: the charge density $\Phi(s)$ must satisfy 

521: the equation 

522: % 

523: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e13} 

524: \int {\cal C}(x(j),x(s)) \Phi(s) ds  \ \ = \ \ 0 

525: \ \ \ \mbox{[GFM equation]} 

526: \end{eqnarray} 

527: %

528: For example, we may take ${\cal C}(x,x') = J_0(k|x-x'|)$, 

529: and we shall refer to this version of GFM as J0-GFM. 

530: For numerical purposes, it is once again convenient to 

531: discretize the integral expression, which can then be

532: written as the matrix equation $\mbf{A}\Phi=0$.  

533: 

534:  

535: The kernel $\mbf{A}_{js} = J_0(k|x-x'|)$ 

536: of the J0-GFM is non-singular, and very well-behaved. 

537: Thus, the J0-GFM method, unlike the Y0-BIM, provides 

538: an extremely convenient way of obtaining the eigenvalues 

539: of the Helmholtz equation. Fig.2 shows an example 

540: of a charge density that was found via the J0-GFM equation 

541: (for more details see next section). 

542: The result is indistinguishable from the charge density

543: generated by the traditional H1-BIM. 

544: [We note however that the J0-GFM method has certain 

545: numerical limitations that we are going to discuss later]. 

546: % 

547: Once the eigenvector $\Phi(s)$ is found via the GFM equation, 

548: we can proceed as with the traditional BIM, and construct 

549: the wavefunction $\Psi(x)$ using Eq.(\ref{e7}). 

550:  

551:  

552:  

553: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

554: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

555: \section{Constructing the wavefunction} 

556: \label{III} 

557: 

558: In this section we explain how a wavefunction $\Psi(x)$ 

559: is constructed for a given $k$. It is assumed that $k$ is an 

560: eigenvalue. The (numerical) question how to determine the 

561: eigenvalues $k=k_n$ is differed to Section~4.       

562: 

563: 

564: \subsection{Green function method (Eq.~(\ref{e7}))} 

565: \label{III_A} 

566:  

567: Both the BIM and GFM make use of Eq.(\ref{e7}) in order

568: to construct the wavefunction. In order to find 

569: the charge vector $\Phi_s$ the BIM equation (Eq.(\ref{e12})) 

570: and the GFM equation (Eq.(\ref{e13})) 

571: are written as the matrix equation \mbox{$\mbf{A}\Phi=0$}. 

572: The only difference between the two 

573: is in the expression for $\mbf{A}$. 

574: Given $k$, one performs the SVD 

575: of the matrix~$\mbf{A}$. Fig.4 displays an example 

576: of the output of such a SVD procedure. 

577: One then finds the right eigenvector $\Phi$ that 

578: corresponds to the {\em smallest} singular value. 

579: 

580: 

581: Once the charge vector $\Phi_s$ has been determined, 

582: as in the example of Fig.2, one can construct 

583: the wavefunction using Eq.(\ref{e7}). 

584: For the Green function Eq.(\ref{e8}), it is 

585: most natural to use the simplest gauge (${\cal C}=0$). 

586: If $k$ is known to be an eigenvalue, 

587: then any gauge should give the same result, 

588: and in particular, the wavefunction

589: associated with any complex part of the Green 

590: function (such as that of the Hankel function) 

591: should vanish. The outcome of the Green function method 

592: is illustrated in Fig.3.  

593: 

594: 

595: It is natural to ask how the constructed wavefunction $\Psi(x)$ 

596: look like outside of the boundary. The answer turns out to be 

597: $\Psi(x)=0$. For completeness, we give a proof 

598: of this statement. Let us define an extended function 

599: $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ such that 

600: $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)=\Psi(x)$ inside 

601: and $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)=0$ outside of the boundary. 

602: We would like to show that $\Psi(x)$ as defined 

603: by Eq.(\ref{e10}) is also equal to $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ 

604: outside of the boundary. 

605: It is clear that $\Psi(x)$ is a solution of the GPL equation 

606: by construction [see discussion following Eq.(\ref{e9})]. 

607: In the next paragraph, we are going to argue 

608: that $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ is a solution of 

609: the {\em same} GPL equation. It follows that 

610: the difference $R(x)=\Psi(x)-\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ 

611: is a solution of Helmholtz equation in free space. 

612: From the definition of $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$, 

613: we have $R(x)=0$ in the interior region, 

614: which implies by the unique continuation property 

615: that $R(x)=0$ over all space. 

616:  

617: The proof that $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ is a solution of 

618: the GPL equation with a charge density given by 

619: Eq.(\ref{e11}) goes as follows: By construction, 

620: $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ satisfies the GPL equation inside 

621: as well as outside of the boundary. All we have to show 

622: is that it also satisfies the GPL equation across 

623: the boundary. The latter statement is most easily 

624: established by invoking Gauss' law. This approach 

625: is valid because at short distances, $G(x,x')$ coincides 

626: with the electrostatic Green function. 

627: Thus, the gradient of $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ corresponds, 

628: up to a sign, to the electric field. Gauss' law implies 

629: that the electric field should have a discontinuity 

630: equal to the charge density $\Phi(s)$. 

631: Indeed, $\Psi_{\tbox{ex}}(x)$ is consistent with 

632: this requirement. 

633: 

634:  

635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

636: \subsection{Decomposition method (Eq.~(\ref{e6}))}

637: \label{IIIB}

638: 

639: 

640: The other procedure to construct the wavefunction

641: is to use the DEM Eq.(\ref{e6}). The idea is to regard $F_j(x;k)$

642: as a basis for the expansion:

643: %

644: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e16_0}

645: \Psi(x) \approx \sum_j  {\mathsf C}_j F_j(x;k)

646: \end{eqnarray}

647: %

648: Any such superposition at fixed $k$ is a solution of

649: the Helmholtz equation within the interior region. Thus, in order

650: to satisfy the Dirichlet boundary conditions, one looks for a vector

651: ${\mathsf C}$ of expansion coefficients that 

652: satisfy ${\mathsf C} \mbf{A} = 0$.

653: It turns out that the direct numerical implementation of 

654: this simple idea is a complicated issue (see discussion of 

655: the null space problem later in this section).

656: 

657: 

658: Any set of $F_j(x;k)$ which are solutions of the Helmholtz equation 

659: may be used for the DEM. However, it should be remembered

660: that computationally not all bases are equivalent.

661: For instance, the $Y_0$ basis defined by Eq.(\ref{e3})), which might

662: appear to be the best choice as a DEM basis due to its association

663: with the BIM, does not give the best numerical results

664: when compared against other options.

665: In particular, it turns out that the PWDM is typically much more

666: effective (recall that the PWDM is a special case of

667: the DEM, corresponding to the choice Eq.(\ref{e2}) of basis functions.)

668: Finally we note that the set of $J_0$s of Eq.(\ref{e4})

669: can not be regarded  as a mathematically legitimate basis

670: for a DEM. This latter point will be explained in Section~5.

671: 

672: 

673: For the $Y_0$ basis the BIM and the DEM lead to the same equation.

674: It is only the mathematical interpretations that is different. 

675: Within the DEM, one regards the $Y_0$ as basis functions to be used 

676: in an expansion, while the same $Y_0$ in the BIM context serves  

677: as the Green function. In the context of DEM, one may be bothered 

678: by the singular nature of the $Y_0$ functions: The constructed wavefunction 

679: should be zero on the boundary.  Mathematically this is achieved 

680: in the $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit, so the $Y_0$ basis is a valid choice.

681: But in an actual numerical implementation, the wavefunction so constructed 

682: will always have singularities on the boundary. 

683: One possible remedy consists of enforcing the boundary conditions 

684: on intermediate boundary points, or on points that lie 

685: on an outer boundary. Alternatively, one may replace the 

686: bare $Y_0$ basis by smooth  superpositions of $Y_0$ functions (see Appendix C).

687: 

688: 

689: 

690: In Fig.2, we display an example of a numerically determined

691: ${\mathsf C}$ (using the PWDM basis) for one of the Pond eigenstates,

692: while in Fig.~3 we illustrate the constructed wavefunction.

693: Unlike the Green function construction,

694: the DEM/PWDM constructed wavefunction does not

695: vanish outside of the boundary. Actually, it is

696: quite the opposite: Typically the DEM/PWDM wavefunction

697: becomes exponentially large as we go further away from 

698: the boundary. Whenever this behaviors occurs, 

699: it constitutes an indication

700: of the {\em evanescent} nature of the wavefunction.

701: Namely, in such cases, the wavefunction acquires

702: sub-wavelength features in order to

703: accommodate the boundary. This requires

704: exponential behavior (negative kinetic energy)

705: in the transverse space direction, in order to keep 

706: the total energy fixed.

707: 

708: 

709: 

710: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

711: \subsection{Normalization of the wavefunction}

712: 

713: 

714: A standard SVD procedure generates vectors $\Phi_s$ and ${\mathsf C}_j$ 

715: that are normalized in the sense $\sum_s |\Phi_s|^2 = 1$ and 

716: $\sum_j |{\mathsf C}_j|^2 = 1$.  Therefore, the constructed $\Psi_r$  

717: is not properly normalized within the interior region.

718: Adopting the usual philosophy of boundary methods, 

719: the problem of calculating the $\Psi_r$ normalization 

720: is reduced to that of evaluating a boundary integral, 

721: namely~\cite{berry1,boasman} 

722: % 

723: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e15} 

724: \int\int |\Psi(x)|^2 dx = 

725: \frac{1}{2k^2} \oint |\Phi(s)|^2 (n(s){\cdot}x(s))ds 

726: \end{eqnarray} 

727: %

728: %

729: %

730: For the BIM, by discretizing of Eq.~(\ref{e15}) 

731: we obtain the following numerical 

732: expression for the normalization factor: 

733: % 

734: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e15a} 

735: \| \Psi_r \| \ \ = \ \ \frac{1}{\Delta s} 

736: \sum_s \mbf{w}_s (\Phi_s)^2 

737: \ \ = \ \ \Phi^{\dag} \mbf{W} \Phi. 

738: \end{eqnarray} 

739: % 

740: Here $\mbf{W}=(1/\Delta s)\mbox{diag}(\mbf{w}_s)$ 

741: is a diagonal matrix, and the weight factor 

742: $\mbf{w}_s$ is defined in Table~1. 

743: %

744: %

745: %

746: As for the DEM, by using the derivative of Eq.(\ref{e16_0}) 

747: in  Eq.(\ref{e11}) and substituting into Eq.(\ref{e15}), we get: 

748: % 

749: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e16a} 

750: \| \Psi_r \| \ &=& \ \Delta s \sum_s \mbf{w}_s 

751: \left(\sum_j {\mathsf C}_j \mbf{D}_{js}\right)^2 

752: \\ \label{e16aa} 

753: \ &=&  \ \sum_{ij} {\mathsf C}_i \mbf{B}_{ij} {\mathsf C}_j 

754: \ = \ {\mathsf C}\mbf{B}{\mathsf C}^{\dag} 

755: \end{eqnarray} 

756: % 

757: The definitions of $D_{js}$ and of the metric $B_{ij}$ 

758: can be found in Table 1. 

759: 

760: The normalization $\| \Psi_r \|$ can be calculated 

761: using the metric $\mbf{B}_{ij}$. This method looks quite 

762: elegant, but it turns out not to be very effective 

763: numerically. Consider Eq.(\ref{e16a}). This 

764: equation is quite safe computationally for two reasons: 

765: (i) all its terms are non-negative; 

766: (ii) standard summation routines order these terms 

767: in descending order. Now, let us look instead at 

768: Eq.(\ref{e16aa}). In this case the numerical calculation 

769: can give {\em any} result (if we go 

770: to large $k$). Sometimes, the answer even 

771: comes out to be negative! This occurs because the calculation 

772: involves many arbitrarily ordered terms that 

773: each have a different algebraic sign. 

774: 

775: 

776: 

777: 

778: 

779: 

780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

781: \subsection{The tension along the boundary}

782: 

783: 

784: The numerical wavefunction $\Psi_r$ satisfies Helmholtz 

785: equation in the interior region {\em by construction}. 

786: Thus, whether $\Psi_r$ is an actual eigenstate depends 

787: on its behavior along the boundary. 

788: In this subsection we would like to discuss 

789: the definition of a `tension' measure 

790: that estimates whether, and to what accuracy, 

791: the numerical $\Psi_r$ satisfies the boundary conditions. 

792: 

793: 

794: 

795: For the case of the DEM, following \cite{heller2}, 

796: the tension is defined as the boundary integral 

797: % 

798: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e16b} 

799: \| \Psi_s \|  \ &=& \ \Delta s \sum_s 

800: \left(\sum_j {\mathsf C}_j \mbf{A}_{js}\right)^2  

801: \ = \ \sum_{ij} {\mathsf C}_i \mbf{T}_{ij} {\mathsf C}_j 

802: \ = \ {\mathsf C}\mbf{T}{\mathsf C}^{\dag} 

803: \end{eqnarray} 

804: % 

805: The standard practice to date for the 

806: tension calculation has been to 

807: use a denser set of boundary points 

808: located between the $x_s$ points. 

809: However, our experience (see also \cite{barnett}) 

810: is that the tension estimate obtained from 

811: the initial set of points is just as effective. 

812: This is demonstrated in Fig.3d. 

813: Therefore, we routinely rely on the same set 

814: of boundary points to determine the tension. 

815: 

816: 

817: For the BIM on the other hand, the above definition 

818: is not practical due to the singular nature of the basis functions. 

819: For any finite $M$, the numerical wavefunction 

820: blows up at each boundary point. 

821: However, since the BIM wavefunction vanishes everywhere 

822: outside of the billiard, a numerically unambiguous definition 

823: of tension arises as an integral of $|\Psi(x)|^2$ along 

824: an outer boundary: 

825: %  

826: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e15b} 

827: \| \Psi_ {{\mathsf s}}\| \ = \ 

828: \Delta s \ \sum_{{\mathsf s}} (\Psi_{{\mathsf s}})^2 

829: \ = \ \Delta s \ \sum_{{\mathsf s}} 

830: \left(\sum_s\mbf{G}_{{\mathsf s}s}\Phi_s \right)^2 

831: \end{eqnarray} 

832: % 

833: By outer boundary (see Fig.1), we mean the set of 

834: external points (${\mathsf s}$~points, as opposed to $s$~points 

835: for the true boundary) that have a fixed 

836: transverse distance $\Delta L$ from the the true boundary. 

837: The distance $\Delta L$ between the boundary and the outer boundary 

838: should be small on any classical scale but large compared with $ds$, 

839: in order for the tension to be independent of the 

840: choice of $\Delta L$. See Fig.5c for a numerical demonstration. 

841:  

842: 

843: 

844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

845: \subsection{The PWDM and the null space problem}

846: 

847: One may think that ${\mathsf C}$ could be found

848: simply by computing the (left) eigenvector

849: that corresponds to the smallest singular

850: value of $\mbf{A}_{js}$. Numerically this definition 

851: is hard to implement. This difficulty can be explained 

852: by looking at the behavior of the singular values 

853: of $\mbf{A}_{js}$ for the PWDM basis.

854: Fig.4 gives some examples of singular values

855: resulting from the SVD of the $\mbf{A}_{js}$ matrix.

856: In the case of the PWDM, as $k$ become large, one observes 

857: that the the singular values separate into two groups: 

858: rather than having one distinctly smaller singular 

859: value, we obtain a whole set of them. 

860: Accordingly, we can define a numerical `null space' 

861: of the $\mbf{A}_{js}$ matrix. 

862: 

863: 

864: The interpretation of this null space is quite clear. 

865: It is well known \cite{dietz,uzy} that it is not efficient 

866: to include much more than $N_{sc}$ 

867: plane waves in the basis set $F_j(x;k)$, where 

868: % 

869: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e16c} 

870: N_{sc} \ = \ \frac{1}{\pi} kL 

871: \end{eqnarray} 

872: % 

873: and $L$ is the perimeter of the billiard. 

874: The reason for this ineffectiveness is 

875: that $k_i$ and $k_j$ cannot 

876: be distinguished numerically within the interior 

877: region unless \mbox{$|k_i-k_j| L > 1$}. 

878: In order to obtain the semiclassical result (\ref{e16c}), 

879: the total phase space area ($L\times(2mv)$) 

880: of the boundary Poincar\'e section is divided by the size

881: of Planck cell ($2\pi\hbar$). If we use

882: $N>N_{sc}$ plane waves, then we can create

883: {\em wavefunctions that are nearly zero in the interior},

884: and become large only as we go far away from the center\cite{berry2}.

885: It is clear that the SVD can be used to determine

886: the $N-N_{sc}$ null space of these evanescent states.

887: Whenever $k$ is an eigenvalue, this null space includes,

888: in addition to the evanescent waves, the single eigenvector

889: that constitutes an eigenstate of the Helmholtz equation.

890: The problem is to distinguish this eigenvector from the other

891: vectors in the null-space.

892: 

893: 

894: The basic difference between the eigenvector that leads 

895: to an eigenstate (which exists if $k=k_n$), and the 

896: other vectors in the null space is related to the normalization. 

897: As discussed before, a standard SVD procedure generates 

898: vectors  ${\mathsf C}_j$ that are normalized 

899: in the sense $\sum_j |{\mathsf C}_j|^2 = 1$. 

900: Therefore, the  $\Psi_r$ of Eq.(\ref{e6}) is not properly normalized 

901: within the interior region. Normalizing the wavefunction 

902: has the effect of magnifying the evanescent solutions 

903: in the interior as well as on the boundary, 

904: while the eigenfunction (if it exists) remains 

905: small on the boundary. In appendix D, we give a detailed 

906: explanation of the numerical procedure for 

907: finding ${\mathsf C}_j$ that can be derived from the above observation.

908:     

909: 

910: 

911:   

912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

914: \section{The quantization measure} 

915: \label{IV} 

916:  

917: 

918: Once we have constructed the wavefunction at a given $k$, the next step 

919: is to determine whether $\Psi$ is an eigenstate. As we will explain below, 

920: our choice of measures reduces to finding the minima of one of: 

921: % 

922: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e28a} 

923: S(k) \ &=& \ \mbox{tension} 

924: \\ \label{e28b} 

925: S(k) \ &=& \ \mbox{smallest singular value} 

926: \\ \label{e28c} 

927: S(k) \ &=& \ \mbox{determinant} 

928: \end{eqnarray} 

929: %

930: We call $S(k)$ the quantization measure.

931: Below we give further explanation of the above definitions. 

932: 

933: 

934: 

935: It is clear that the most natural quantization measure is the tension. 

936: If a properly normalized wavefunction has ``zero tension" on the boundary, 

937: it means that the corresponding $k$ is an eigenvalue. 

938: The normalization issue is further discussed in Appendix~D.  

939: The question that arises is whether we can use a numerically simpler  

940: measure, and what price we pay for doing so. 

941: 

942: 

943: The BIM Eq.~(\ref{e12}) and the GFM Eq.~(\ref{e13}) can both be written as 

944: $\mbf{A}\Phi = 0$, with the appropriate choice of  $\mbf{A}$. 

945: Thus, if $k$ is an eigenvalue, $\mbf{A}$ should have a singular value 

946: that tends to $0$ as $N$ increases. The determinant of $\mbf{A}$ 

947: is defined as the product of all the singular values, and therefore 

948: it should vanish whenever one of the singular values does. 

949: Using the {\em GFM-DEM duality} which is discussed in Section~5, 

950: it is clear that for the DEM (and for the PWDM in particular) 

951: the determinant of $\mbf{A}$ vanishes whenever $k$ is an eigenvalue. 

952: It is important to realize that in the latter argumentation, 

953: {\em we do not rely on inside-outside duality} \cite{uzy} considerations, 

954: but rather on the much simpler {\em GFM-DEM duality}.  

955: 

956: 

957: Thus, a low tension must be correlated with

958: having a vanishingly small singular value or determinant. 

959: The converse is not true: It is well known that 

960: SVD based quantization measures may lead to spurious 

961: minima (see \cite{backer} and references therein). 

962: Therefore SVD based procedure for finding eigenvalues 

963: requires a post-selection procedure whose aim  

964: is to distinguish true zeros from fake ones.

965: 

966: 

967: It is important to realize that neither the traditional implementation 

968: of PWDM, nor that of the BIM should be considered to be 'package deals'. 

969: For example, the BIM could be used with the 

970: tension as a measure (defined in the next section), rather than looking 

971: for minima of the the singular values. 

972: Similarly, the usual Heller method of PWDM implementation (see Appendix~D) 

973: could be replaced by a search over determinant values. 

974: 

975: 

976:  

977: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

978: \subsection{The tension as a quantization measure} 

979:  

980:  

981: The tension is a robust measure of quantization.

982: Fig.5 displays some examples of the corresponding 

983: $S(k)$ plots. The PWDM minima 

984: are typically much sharper than their BIM equivalents. 

985: Zooming over a PWDM minimum (Fig.5d) reveals 

986: some amount of roughness. 

987: This feature is actually helpful, because it 

988: gives an indication of and control over the accuracy 

989: of the numerics. We interpret the roughness of the 

990: PWDM minimum as a reflection for the 

991: existence of a null-space. In the same spirit, 

992: the smoothness of the BIM minima can be regarded 

993: as an indication that better accuracy can be 

994: obtained by making $N$ larger. We discuss these issues 

995: below.

996:  

997: The tension provides a common measure that 

998: may be used to monitor improvements, 

999: as well as to compare the success of the different methods. 

1000: Naturally, the first issue to discuss is 

1001: the dependence of the tension on the 

1002: size $N$ of the basis set (see Fig.6). 

1003: For the BIM, the tension becomes better as $N$ grows, 

1004: and disregarding the computer hardware, 

1005: there is no reason to suspect that there is an inherent 

1006: limitation on the accuracy. The situation is different for the PWDM. 

1007: Here, taking $N$ much larger than $N_{sc}$ is not effective. 

1008: In practice, the method reaches a limiting accuracy, 

1009: which, taking into account present hardware limitations, 

1010: is still very good compared with that of the BIM. 

1011:  

1012: From Fig.6, it is also clear that the tension of the PWDM becomes 

1013: much better as $k$ becomes larger. This is expected on the 

1014: basis of the following semiclassical reasoning: larger uncertainties 

1015: in $k$ result from confining a particle 

1016: to a smaller box (taking a smaller box for a given $k$ 

1017: is equivalent to making $k$ smaller for a given box size). 

1018: Thus, it is more difficult to build a wavefunction with a precise 

1019: value of $|k_j|=k$ for low lying eigenstates. 

1020: On the other hand, the BIM does not seem to be sensitive 

1021: to the value of $k$. 

1022: 

1023: 

1024: 

1025:  

1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1027: \subsection{The tension as an indication for the global error} 

1028:  

1029:  

1030: The tension can be regarded as a measure 

1031: of the {\em local error} in the 

1032: determination of the eigenfunction. 

1033: The tension is local in the sense that it pertains only 

1034: to points along boundary. We can also define 

1035: a measure for the {\em global error}, 

1036: that is the error which is associated with all 

1037: the interior points:

1038: % 

1039: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_error} 

1040: (\Delta \Psi)^2 \ \ = \ \ 

1041: \langle |\Psi_r - \Psi_{\tbox{exct}}(X_r)|^2 \rangle 

1042: \end{eqnarray} 

1043: % 

1044: Here $\Psi_{\tbox{exct}}(x)$ is the numerically exact 

1045: wavefunction. The average is taken over the 

1046: set $X_r$ of selected points inside of the boundary. 

1047: Fig.7 gives an example for the variation of the 

1048: error along the cross section line of Fig.1. 

1049: In order to eliminate a possible bias due to a 

1050: global normalization error, we renormalized 

1051: the inexact wavefunction so that 

1052: $\Psi_r = \Psi_{\tbox{exct}}(X_r)$ at a randomly selected 

1053: point $X=X_0$. In retrospect, we realized that 

1054: such an error did not significantly affect the result. 

1055: However, we still chose to be on the 

1056: safe side, and we adopted this procedure routinely. 

1057:   

1058: It is natural to expect the average error 

1059: $(\Delta \Psi)^2$ to be correlated with 

1060: the tension. In other words, if 

1061: $|\Psi_r - \Psi_{\tbox{exct}}(X_r)|$ is small on the boundary, 

1062: then one may expect it to be small in the interior. 

1063: The degree of such correlation is important 

1064: for practical reasons. Moreover, we have introduced two different versions 

1065: of tension definitions, one for each of the PWDM and the BIM. 

1066: It is not a-priori clear that the above correlation is independent 

1067: of the choice of numerical method. 

1068: In Fig.8, we study this issue by plotting $(\Delta \Psi)^2$ 

1069: against the tension for the BIM and the PWDM. 

1070: In the case of the PWDM, the error saturates below a critical 

1071: tension. After this point, further improvements on the boundary 

1072: do not seem to affect the bulk of the eigenstate. 

1073: It is not clear from the numerics whether or not the BIM 

1074: saturates. What is clear however is that 

1075: the BIM does a poorer job at reproducing 

1076: the wavefunction inside of the boundary than the PWDM with 

1077: the same tension. 

1078:  

1079: The saturation of the error well inside the billiard 

1080: can be explained as a manifestation of the fact that 

1081: the wavefunction there is not very sensitive to 

1082: sub-wavelength roughness of the boundary: 

1083: If $N$ is reasonably large, the numerical wavefunction 

1084: vanishes on a nodal line that almost coincides with the 

1085: true (pre-defined) boundary. Increasing $N$ further 

1086: affects the sub-wavelength features of the 

1087: (distance) difference between that nodal-line and 

1088: the true boundary. This distance difference is 

1089: important for the tension, but barely

1090: affects the wavefunction well inside the billiard. 

1091:  

1092:  

1093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1094: 

1095: \subsection{The determinant as a quantization measure} 

1096:  

1097:  

1098: The tension is the natural choice for a quantization measure. 

1099: However, from a numerical point of view, it is much more convenient 

1100: and time effective to compute the singular values of $\mbf{A}$, 

1101: without having to find the eigenvectors for each $k$ value, 

1102: and without having to compute the wavefunction 

1103: along the boundary (for tension calculation). 

1104: 

1105:   

1106: The smallest singular value is traditionally used 

1107: as a quantization measure for the BIM. 

1108: From Fig.7, it is quite clear that for the BIM 

1109: one of the singular values is significantly smaller 

1110: than the others, so that the eigenstate 

1111: is unambiguously determined by this method. 

1112: Is it possible to use the same approach, with comparable success, 

1113: for the PWDM?  We have already determined that looking at the 

1114: smallest singular values is not very meaningful numerically. 

1115: For $N > N_{sc}$, there exists a large null-space of evanescent 

1116: states for any $k$.  The metric method (Appendix D) 

1117: is not a practical solution to this problem 

1118: since we want to gain numerical efficiency (if efficiency is not 

1119: the issue then it is better to use the tension as a quantization measure).  

1120: 

1121: 

1122: One simple way to improve the numerical stability 

1123: is to use the determinant rather than the smallest 

1124: singular value as a quantization measure:  

1125: Each time that $k=k_n$, the null space should include one more 

1126: `dimension'. Therefore, the determinant, rather than the 

1127: smallest singular value, becomes the reasonable quantity 

1128: to look at. Thus, from numerical point of view (\ref{e28b}) 

1129: should be superior compared with (\ref{e28a}). 

1130:  

1131: 

1132: Fig.9 illustrates how the determinant can be used in practice 

1133: as a quantization measure. As a general rule, as is the case 

1134: for the tension, the PWDM/GFM minima are sharper than the BIM 

1135: ones. On the one hand, this extra sharpness can be regarded as 

1136: an advantage, because it leads to a better resolution of the 

1137: eigenvalue spectrum. However, more computer time is needed in order 

1138: to find these minima.  The BIM minima are broader, 

1139: and therefore digging algorithms that search for local minima 

1140: become extremely effective. 

1141:  

1142: 

1143: In the case of the traditional BIM, using a larger $N$ leads to 

1144: a better resolution of the local minima, as expected. 

1145: The traditional H-BIM uses the complex Hankel Bessel 

1146: function as its Green function. One may wonder why 

1147: the real Neumann function could not be 

1148: used instead. A-priori, there is no reason to 

1149: insist on Hankel choice. However, it seems that 

1150: with Neumann choice the numerics are not very stable:  

1151: The locations of the local minima vary on a $k$ range which is 

1152: large compared to their $k$ width. 

1153: Because of this problem, search routines 

1154: relying on the Y-BIM may yield misleading values for the 

1155: error in the $k_n$ determination.

1156: Thus, the numerical stability of the H-BIM can be attributed 

1157: to the fact that the BIM equation $\mbf{A}\Phi=0$ becomes 

1158: complex. Its real part is just the Y-BIM equation, 

1159: while its imaginary part is the J-GFM equation. 

1160: Thus one may say that the H-BIM benefits from combining 

1161: the Y-BIM with the J-GFM. 

1162: 

1163: 

1164: 

1165: Is it practical to use the Fredholm determinant 

1166: as a quantization measure also in the GFM/PWDM case? 

1167: Here we observe that the null-space problem is reflected 

1168: in the stability of the determinant calculation.

1169: It is useful to characterize the numerics 

1170: using the discretization parameter~$b$:

1171: %

1172: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_bdef}

1173: b \ \ = \ \ \frac{N}{N_{sc}} \ \

1174: =\Big|_{\tbox{$M$=$N$}} \ \ \frac{\lambda/2}{\Delta s}

1175: \end{eqnarray}

1176: %

1177: The last equality holds if we take $M=N$,

1178: leading to the interpretation of $b$ as the

1179: number of boundary points per half De-Broglie wavelength.

1180: If $b<1$ the null space problem does not exist,

1181: and we can define ${\mathsf C}$ as the

1182: (left) eigenvector that corresponds to the smallest

1183: singular value of $\mbf{A}_{js}$.

1184: Of course, we want to push PWDM to the limit,

1185: and therefore in practice we always take $b>1$.

1186: 

1187: 

1188: 

1189: The natural question is whether choosing a

1190: very large $b$ is numerically useful.

1191: Our numerical experience is that for $1<b<1.8$ 

1192: we get nice minima, which actually look much 

1193: sharper than the BIM ones (see Fig.~9). 

1194: As we try to increase $b$ in order to improve accuracy, 

1195: the numerics loose stability (what we mean by 

1196: instability is demonstrated in Fig.~9e). 

1197: The same phenomenon occurs with J0-GFM, 

1198: which has somewhat larger tendency for instability. 

1199: This is apparently because the J0-GFM 

1200: is involved with a larger null-space (see Fig.~4). 

1201: 

1202: 

1203: 

1204: Thus we conclude that taking $b>1$ does improve the

1205: numerics, while $b \gg 1$ generally leads to

1206: instabilities that should be avoided.

1207: The optimal choice of $b$ depends

1208: on the details of the implementation

1209: and on the computer hardware. It should be clear that if the

1210: numerical accuracy were unlimited, 

1211: then the $b\rightarrow\infty$ limit would lead 

1212: to a numerically exact solution in cases

1213: where the wavefunctions may be written 

1214: as superpositions of plane waves.  

1215: This is not always possible \cite{boris}.

1216: Note however that evanescent features  

1217: of the wavefunction can be reconstructed 

1218: by a suitable superposition of plane waves \cite{berry2}.

1219: 

1220: 

1221: 

1222:  

1223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1225: \section{The duality of the GFM and the DEM} 

1226: \label{V} 

1227: 

1228: In addition to providing a boundary method of its own, 

1229: the GFM also serves to bridge the gap between 

1230: the BIM and the DEM. Consider the version of the GFM 

1231: that is based on the choice ${\cal C}(x,x') = F_j(x;k)$, 

1232: where the $F_j$ are solutions of the Helmholtz equation 

1233: in free space (with neither singularities nor cuts). 

1234: With this choice, we immediately realize that 

1235: the DEM and the GFM are dual methods: 

1236: % 

1237: \begin{eqnarray} 

1238: \label{e14a} 

1239: \mbf{A} \Phi=0  \hspace*{1.5cm} & \mbox{[GFM equation]} \\ 

1240: \label{e14b} 

1241: {\mathsf C} \mbf{A}=0  \hspace*{1.5cm}  & \mbox{[DEM equation]} 

1242: \end{eqnarray} 

1243: % 

1244: The only difference lies in whether one looks 

1245: for the {\em left} or the {\em right} eigenvector. 

1246: This point is numerically demonstrated in Fig.2. 

1247:   

1248: The PWDM version of the DEM also satisfies this duality. 

1249: In this special case, a somewhat more elegant version 

1250: of the above argument is as follows: 

1251: Consider the version of the GFM that is based on the choice 

1252: \mbox{${\cal C}(x,x') = \exp(ik n_j\cdot(x-x'))$}, 

1253: where $n_j$ is a unit vector in a given direction. 

1254: We can take $N$ different choices of $n_j$, 

1255: thus obtaining the matrix equation $\mbf{A} \Phi = 0$ with 

1256: % 

1257: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e14} 

1258: \mbf{A}_{js} \ \ = \ \ 

1259: \exp(ik n_j \cdot x_s) 

1260: \end{eqnarray} 

1261: % 

1262: An equivalent matrix equation is found by 

1263: multiplying each equation by $\exp(ik\phi_j)$, 

1264: where  $\phi_j$ are random phases. We can then 

1265: take the real part of these equations, thus 

1266: obtaining a set of equations that involves the same 

1267: matrix $\mbf{A}$ as that of PWDM, 

1268: namely (\ref{e5}) with the basis defined by (\ref{e2}). 

1269: 

1270:  

1271: The duality of the PWDM and the GFM is very important from 

1272: a mathematical point of view. The mathematical 

1273: foundations of the PWDM are quite shaky. 

1274: It is clear that PWDM is well-established mathematically 

1275: if a strict `inside-outside duality' (IOD) \cite{uzy} is satisfied.

1276: %

1277: % That is, the interior (billiard) region has an 

1278: %eigenvalue at a given $k$ if and only if the 

1279: %scattering matrix does for the outside scattering problem. 

1280: %

1281: In this case, the wavefunction can be extended to the

1282: whole plane so that the boundary of the billiard can be 

1283: regarded as a {\em nodal line} of some plane-wave superposition. 

1284: Obviously, this is rarely possible \cite{berry2}. 

1285: Therefore, one may wonder whether 

1286: we indeed have $\det(\mbf{A})=0$ whenever $k=k_n$. 

1287: Using the duality Eq.(\ref{e14a}), it becomes obvious 

1288: that the Fredholm determinant indeed vanishes at the eigenstates, 

1289: even in the absence of an exact IOD. 

1290:  

1291: It is quite clear from the first paragraph 

1292: of this section that any expansion method can 

1293: be associated with a corresponding GFM. 

1294: Whenever the left eigenvector 

1295: is used with the expansion method, 

1296: the right eigenvector can be used with the GFM. 

1297: We have already demonstrated this point in Fig.2. 

1298: Is it possible to make the inverse statement? 

1299: Do we have a well defined expansion method 

1300: associated with any GFM?  The answer is negative. 

1301: We discuss this issue in the rest of 

1302: this section, and it can be skipped at first reading.  

1303: 

1304: For the following, it is convenient to 

1305: consider Eq.(\ref{e6}) as $N\rightarrow\infty$. 

1306: Subsequently, we are going to talk about whether this 

1307: limit is meaningful. 

1308: In the case of the usual PWDM, 

1309: the $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit of Eq.(\ref{e6}) 

1310: can be written as 

1311: % 

1312: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e16_1} 

1313: \Psi(x) = \int_0^{2\pi} 

1314: C(\theta)d\theta 

1315: \ \exp(ik n(\theta)\cdot x) 

1316: \end{eqnarray} 

1317: % 

1318: Similarly, in the case of the $J_0$ decomposition, 

1319: using the basis functions of Eq.(\ref{e4}), 

1320: we can write in complete analogy: 

1321: % 

1322: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e16_2} 

1323: \Psi(x) = \oint 

1324: \Phi(s)ds \ J_0(k|x-x(s)|) 

1325: \end{eqnarray} 

1326: % 

1327: In writing Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) we have used the fact 

1328: that $J_0(x(j)-x(s))$ is a symmetric kernel, 

1329: and therefore we could make the substitution ${\mathsf C}=\Phi$. 

1330:  

1331:  

1332: Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) looks at first sight 

1333: like an innocent variation of Eq.(\ref{e16_1}). 

1334: The Bessel function $J_0$ is just a superposition 

1335: of plane waves, and therefore one may 

1336: possess the (incorrect) idea that there is a simple 

1337: way to go from Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) to Eq.(\ref{e16_1}). 

1338: If we expand each $J_0$ in Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) 

1339: in plane waves, and re-arrange the expression 

1340: in order to identify the PWDM coefficients, 

1341: we end up with the relation 

1342: % 

1343: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e18} 

1344: {\mathsf C}(\theta)  = 

1345: \int \mbox{e}^{- ik n(\theta){\cdot}x(s)} 

1346: \ \Phi(s) ds 

1347: \end{eqnarray} 

1348: % 

1349: This relation implies the trivial result 

1350: ${\mathsf C}(\theta)=0$ due to gauge freedom 

1351: [see discussion of Eq.(\ref{e14})]. 

1352: Hence we conclude that the constructed 

1353: wavefunction is $\Psi(x) \equiv 0$ in the 

1354: $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit! 

1355:   

1356: Having $\Psi(x) \equiv 0$ from Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) 

1357: could have been anticipated using a simpler 

1358: argument: We know that Eq.(\ref{e10}) should hold 

1359: for {\em any} gauge choice. 

1360: This gauge freedom implies that we have 

1361: % 

1362: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e17} 

1363: \oint {\cal C}(x,x(s)) \Phi(s) ds  \ \ = \ \ 0 

1364: \end{eqnarray} 

1365: % 

1366: The above equation should hold for 

1367: any $x$ inside 

1368: as well as on the boundary. 

1369: Furthermore, the left hand side 

1370: of (\ref{e17}) is manifestly a solution 

1371: of Helmholtz equation in free space, 

1372: and it follows from the unique continuation 

1373: property that Eq.(\ref{e17}) holds also 

1374: for points outside of the boundary. 

1375: % 

1376: Having $\Psi(x)=0$ as a result of the 

1377: integration in Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) 

1378: is just a particular case of Eq.(\ref{e17}). 

1379:  

1380: In spite of the observation that Eq.(\ref{e16_2}) 

1381: yields $\Psi(x) \equiv 0$ in the $N\rightarrow\infty$ 

1382: limit, the vector $\Psi_r$ is non-zero numerically 

1383: for any finite $N$.  In fact, 

1384: after proper re-normalization, $\Psi_r$ becomes a quite good 

1385: approximation to the wavefunction (see Fig.3c and Fig.3e). 

1386: Sometimes the result so obtained is 

1387: even better than the one which is found 

1388: via the traditional BIM Eq.~(\ref{e7}). 

1389: As strange as it sounds, this success is entirely 

1390: due to the fact that we are using finite $N$. 

1391:   

1392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1393: 

1394: \section{Conclusion}

1395: 

1396: The BIM and the DEM were written as different faces of a unified boundary

1397: procedure comprising four steps. In the process of doing so, yet a third 

1398: boundary method was derived as part of the same framework, the GFM. 

1399: The DEM and the GFM are strongly related, as they are respectively the 

1400: left and right eigenvectors of the same Fredholm matrix. We think that 

1401: the presented approach opens the way towards a controlled fusion 

1402: of the BIM and the DEM into a more powerful numerical procedure. 

1403: 

1404: The unified treatment of quantization measures allowed us to compare 

1405: the efficiency of the various methods, and to analyze both the local 

1406: and the global errors in the numerically determined wavefunction. 

1407: In particular, a numerically valid definition of the BIM tension was given, 

1408: and was found to possess smooth minima at the eigenstates. 

1409: Using the tension as a quantization measure is one possible way 

1410: to avoid some problems \cite{backer} that are encountered in the traditional 

1411: implementation of the BIM. 

1412: 

1413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1414: \appendix 

1415:  

1416:  

1417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1418: \section{The BIM for the scattering problem} 

1419:  

1420: The solution of the Helmholtz equation for the scattering problem 

1421: is just another variation of the BIM. Consider a boundary, one that in 

1422: general may be composed of several disconnected pieces. The incident 

1423: wave $\Psi_{\tbox{incident}}(x)$ is a solution of Helmholtz 

1424: equation in free space. Formally, $\Psi_{\tbox{incident}}(x)$ includes both 

1425: the ingoing and the outgoing wave components. We look for a solution 

1426: $\Psi(x)$ that has the same ingoing 

1427: component as $\Psi_{\tbox{incident}}(x)$, 

1428: and that satisfies $\Psi(x)=0$ on the boundary. 

1429: Such solution can be written as a sum 

1430: of the incident wave and a scattered wave, 

1431: and hence must be of the form 

1432: % 

1433: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eb1} 

1434: \Psi(x) = \Psi_{\tbox{incident}}(x) 

1435: + \oint G(x,x(s')) \Phi(s') ds 

1436: \end{eqnarray} 

1437: % 

1438: Equation (\ref{eb1}) is a variation of Eq.(\ref{e10}). 

1439: Note that the Green function should 

1440: satisfy outgoing boundary conditions in order to 

1441: yield the desired solution. 

1442: The charge density $\Phi(s)$ is fixed by 

1443: the requirement that $\Psi(x)=0$, which leads to the boundary equation 

1444: % 

1445: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eb2} 

1446: \oint G(x(s),x(s')) \Phi(s') ds = - \Psi_{\tbox{incident}}(s) 

1447: \end{eqnarray} 

1448: % 

1449: This inhomogeneous equation is a straightforward 

1450: generalization of Eq.(\ref{e12}). A discretized 

1451: version of it was used  in Ref.\cite{lupo} in order 

1452: to obtain numerical solutions of the Helmholtz equation 

1453: for some scattering problems. 

1454:  

1455:  

1456: The derivation of Eq.(\ref{eb2}) in Ref.\cite{lupo} 

1457: is much more complicated than ours, and involves the use 

1458: of Lippmann-Schwinger equation. 

1459: The boundary is represented by a large delta-potential $V$, 

1460: and the limit $V\rightarrow\infty$ is taken. 

1461: Using this procedure, the charge density $\Phi(s)$ can 

1462: be obtained as the $V\rightarrow\infty$ limit of $V\Psi(x(s))$. 

1463: Note the correctness of the physical units. Namely, 

1464: $[{\cal H}][\Psi]=[\rho]$ and therefore $[V][\Psi]=[\Phi]$. 

1465: Note also that the wavefunction is in general non-zero 

1466: in both sides of the boundary. Therefore the charge density 

1467: $\Phi(s)$ is equal to the {\em difference} between the 

1468: normal derivatives on both sides of the boundary. 

1469: The simplest way to derive the relation between $\Phi(s)$ 

1470: and $V\Psi(x(s))$ is to integrate the Helmholtz equation 

1471: over an infinitesimal range across the boundary, 

1472: as in the treatment of the 1D Shchrodinger equation 

1473: with delta potential. 

1474:  

1475:  

1476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1477: \section{Traditional BIM equation} 

1478:  

1479: The primitive BIM equation (Eq.(\ref{e12})) 

1480: is based on Eq.(\ref{e10}). 

1481: The traditional BIM is a variation of the same idea 

1482: which avoids the boundary singularities that 

1483: plague the more  simplistic version. 

1484: Rather than using Eq.(\ref{e10}) directly, 

1485: one considers its gradient, leading to 

1486: % 

1487: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ea1} 

1488: \partial_{\pm} \Psi(x(s)) \ = \ 

1489: \oint \partial_{\pm} G(x(s),x(s')) \Phi(s') ds' 

1490: \end{eqnarray} 

1491: % 

1492: This equation is analogous to Eq.(\ref{e12}). 

1493: We use the notation $\partial_{+}$ and $\partial_{-}$ 

1494: in order to refer to the normal derivative 

1495: 

1496: on the interior and exterior sides of the boundary 

1497: By definition, \mbox{$\partial_{-} \Psi(x(s)) = \Phi(s)$}, 

1498: and from the discussion in section III 

1499: we have \mbox{$\partial_{+} \Psi(x(s)) = 0$}. 

1500: Adding the two equations of (\ref{ea1}), we obtain 

1501: % 

1502: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ea2} 

1503: \Phi(x(s)) \ = \ 

1504: \oint 2\partial G(x(s),x(s')) \Phi(s') ds' 

1505: \end{eqnarray} 

1506: % 

1507: where $\partial \equiv (\partial_{+}+\partial_{-})/2$ 

1508: is just the derivative on the boundary in the principal sense. 

1509: Thus, in the traditional BIM, the definition 

1510: of the Fredholm matrix is 

1511: % 

1512: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ea3} 

1513: \mbf{A}_{ss'} \ = \ \frac{1}{\Delta s}\delta_{ss'} \ 

1514:                  - \  2\partial G(x(s),x(s')) 

1515: \end{eqnarray} 

1516: % 

1517: and the BIM equation (\ref{ea2}) is $\mbf{A}\Phi=0$. 

1518: The kernel $\partial G(x(s),x(s'))$ is well- 

1519: behaved, and its diagonal elements are finite 

1520: thanks to the presence of a geometrical factor. 

1521: Namely, if $G(x(s),x(s'))=g(k|x(s)-x(s')|)$ then 

1522: % 

1523: \begin{eqnarray} 

1524: \partial G = k\frac{n(s)\cdot(x(s)-x(s'))}{|x(s)-x(s')|} 

1525: g'(k|x(s)-x(s')|) 

1526: \end{eqnarray} 

1527: % 

1528: If either one of the Bessel functions $H_0$ or $Y_0$ 

1529: is used for the Green function, then the definition 

1530: of $\mbf{A}_{ss'}$ above involves 

1531: either $H_1$ or $Y_1$, respectively. 

1532: 

1533: 

1534: 

1535: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1536: \section{Transformed BIM equations} 

1537: 

1538: There exists another elegant version of the BIM

1539: \cite{klaus,klaus-long,KKR} which does not exhibit the singularities associated

1540: with the Y0-BIM. Namely, the BIM equation is rewritten as

1541: %

1542: \begin{eqnarray}

1543: \int \tilde{G}(x(j),\kappa)

1544: \tilde{\Phi}(\kappa) d\kappa  \ \ = \ \ 0,

1545: \end{eqnarray}

1546: %

1547: where the vector $\tilde{\Phi}(\kappa)$ is related by a linear transformation

1548: to the vector $\Phi(s)$. This transformation corresponds to the selection of a 

1549: complete basis set of boundary wavefunctions. The KKR method \cite{KKR} 

1550: is a particular implementation which uses the spherical harmonics.

1551: Another (more general) choice \cite{klaus,klaus-long} consists of taking

1552: $\tilde{\Phi}(\kappa)$ as the Fourier components of $\Phi(s)$.

1553: In the latter case $\tilde{G}$ is related to $G$ by the Fourier

1554: transform $s\mapsto\kappa$. However, obtaining $\tilde{G}$ from $G$ is not

1555: a simple matter for most boundary shapes.

1556: 

1557:  

1558: 

1559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1560: \section{The PWDM, in practice} 

1561:  

1562: The mathematically clean solution for the 

1563: null-space problem is to adopt a method based on a metric. 

1564: As we explain in the next paragraph, 

1565: this procedure is sensitive to cumulative numerical errors. 

1566: A modified implementation of the metric method,  

1567: that avoids some of the numerical problems,  

1568: has been introduced by Barnett~\cite{barnett}. 

1569: The other possibility is to use a very simple 

1570: procedure which is known as Heller's method~\cite{heller2}. 

1571: Below we discuss the latter as well. 

1572: 

1573: 

1574: The metric method works as follows: 

1575: First, one finds the basis in which the 

1576: normalization metric $\mbf{B}_{ij}$ becomes $\delta_{ij}$. 

1577: The tension metric $\mbf{T}_{ij}$ should then be written 

1578: in that same basis. The SVD is done on the transformed 

1579: tension metric. In this case, the null space becomes at most 

1580: one-dimensional (whenever $k=k_n$).  Unfortunately, this 

1581: elegant and straightforward metric scheme does not work very well, 

1582: due to the finite precision problems 

1583: discussed in connection with Eq.(\ref{e16aa}). 

1584: Furthermore, $\mbf{B}$ and $\mbf{T}$ are "squares" of $\mbf{A}$, 

1585: which leads to a loss of numerical precision 

1586: compared with an $\mbf{A}$-based strategy. 

1587:  

1588:  

1589: The most widely used $\mbf{A}$-based 

1590: strategy is referred to as Heller's method~\cite{heller2}. 

1591: The idea is to find ${\mathsf C}_j$ as the solution 

1592: of the $M \geq N$ set of equations 

1593: $\sum_j {\mathsf C}_j \mbf{A}_{js} = 0$, 

1594: with the additional constraint 

1595: $\sum_j {\mathsf C}_j \mbf{A}_{j0} = 1$. 

1596: Table 1 gives the definition of $\mbf{A}_{j0}$. 

1597:  

1598: By constraining the wavefunction to be $\Psi(X_0)=1$ 

1599: at a selected point $X_0$ in the interior of the billiard, 

1600: we eliminate the problems associated with evanescent states,

1601: as the associated (evanescent) wavefunctions no longer vanish 

1602: on the boundary and thus, there is no longer 

1603: a null-space problem.  As a result, quite large~$b$ 

1604: can be used without encountering numerical instabilities. 

1605: The only worry with this method is that $X_0$ may happen 

1606: to be very close to a nodal line. 

1607: In such cases, the tension will be large due to an improper 

1608: normalization, so we will miss these eigenstates. 

1609: 

1610: 

1611: 

1612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1613:  

1614: \ \\ 

1615:  

1616: \noindent 

1617: {\bf Acknowledgments:} 

1618:  

1619: \noindent 

1620: It is our pleasure to thank Alex Barnett, Areez Mody,

1621: Lev Kaplan and Michael Haggerty for many useful discussions,

1622: and Klaus Hornberger and Uzy Smilansky for their comments.

1623: This work was funded by ITAMP and the National Science Foundation.

1624: 

1625: \ \\ 

1626: 

1627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1628:  

1629: \begin{thebibliography}{99} 

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{sto} 

1632: H.J. Stockmann, "Quantum Chaos : An Introduction" 

1633: (Cambridge Univ Pr 1999). 

1634:  

1635: \bibitem{datta} 

1636: S. Datta, "Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems" 

1637: (Cambridge Univ Pr 1997). 

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{kuttler}

1640: J.R.Kuttler and V.G.Sigillito, "Eigenvalues of the

1641: Laplacian", SIAM Review 26 (1984) 163-193.

1642: 

1643: \bibitem{backer} A. Backer {\em in} 

1644: "The mathematical aspects of quantum maps",

1645: M.Degli Esposti and S.Graffi (Eds), Springer (2003)

1646: [nlin.CD/0204061].  

1647: 

1648: \bibitem{barnett} 

1649: A.~Barnett, PhD thesis (Harvard, Sept. 2000). 

1650: 

1651: % \bibitem{heller1} 

1652: % E.J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 53}, 1515 (1984). 

1653:  

1654: \bibitem{conformal} 

1655: M. Robnik, J. Phys. A {\bf 17}, 1049 (1983). 

1656:  

1657: \bibitem{reichl} 

1658: G.A. Luna-Acosta, Kyungsun Na, and L.E. Reichl, 

1659: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53}, 3271 (1996). 

1660:  

1661: \bibitem{berry1} 

1662: M.V.~Berry and M. Wilkinson, 

1663: Proc. R. Soc. London A {\bf 392}, 15 (1984). 

1664: R.~E. Kleinman and G.~F. Roach, 

1665: SIAM Review {\bf 16}(2), 214--236 (1974). 

1666: R.~J. Riddell, J. Comp. Phys. {\bf 31}, 21 (1979). 

1667: S.~W. McDonald and A.~N. Kaufman, 

1668: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 37}(8), 3067--3086 (1988). 

1669:  

1670: \bibitem{heller2} 

1671: E.J Heller, {\it Chaos and Quantum Systems}, ed. M.-J.~Giannoni, A.~Voros, 

1672: J.~Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991), p. 548. 

1673:  

1674: \bibitem{vergini} 

1675: E.~Vergini, PhD thesis (Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1995). 

1676:  

1677: \bibitem{VS} 

1678: E. Vergini and M. Saraceno, Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 52}, 2204 (1995). 

1679:   

1680: \bibitem{li} 

1681: B.~Li, M.~Robnik, B.~Hu, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 4095 (1998). 

1682:  

1683: \bibitem{bmi} N. Lepore, D. Cohen and E.J. Heller, in preparation. 

1684:  

1685: \bibitem{klaus} 

1686: K. Hornberger and U. Smilansky, 

1687: J. Phys. A {\bf 33}, 2829 (2000). 

1688:  

1689: \bibitem{klaus-long}

1690: K. Hornberger, Spectral Properties of Magnetic Edge States,

1691: Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (2001).

1692: [http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~klh/pubs/].

1693: 

1694: \bibitem{KKR}

1695: M.V. Berry, Annals of Physics {\bf 131}, 163-216 (1981).

1696: 

1697: \bibitem{boris}

1698: B. Gutkin, archive preprint nlin.CD/0301031.

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{boasman}

1701: P.A.~Boasman, Nonlinearity {\bf 7}, 485.

1702: 

1703: \bibitem{dietz}

1704: B.~Dietz and U.~Smilansky, Chaos {\bf 3}, 581 (1993).

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{uzy}

1707: B. Dietz et al., Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51}, 4222 (1995).

1708: 

1709: \bibitem{berry2}

1710: M.V.~Berry, J. Phys. A, {\bf 27}, L391 (1994).

1711: 

1712: \bibitem{lupo}

1713: M.G.E. da Luz, A. Lupu Sax, and E.J. Heller,

1714: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56}, 2496 (1997).

1715: 

1716: \bibitem{vega}

1717: J.L. Vega, T. Uzer, J. Ford, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 1490 (1995).

1718: 

1719: \bibitem{rmrk} The polar equation of the Pond shape is

1720: \mbox{$r=1+0.2*\cos(\theta+0.9*\cos(\theta))$}.

1721: 

1722: \bibitem{rmrk2} We assume here the usual free space

1723: boundary conditions used in electrostatics.

1724: 

1725: \bibitem{rmrk3} Note that Eq.~(\ref{e9}) always gives "a solution"

1726: of the GPL equation. This is true irrespective

1727: of the choice of boundary conditions and Green function.

1728: 

1729: \end{thebibliography} 

1730: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1732:  

1733: 

1734: 

1735:  

1736: %FIGURES: 

1737:  

1738:  

1739: \newpage

1740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1742: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=shapes,width=5cm}} 

1743: \vspace{.1in} 

1744: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.1:} 

1745: Full line: The 'Pond' shape~\cite{rmrk}. 

1746: Its radius is roughly $1$, and its perimeter is $L=6.364$. 

1747: Dashed line: The cross section line that is used e.g. in Fig.3c. 

1748: Dots: The 'outer boundary' which is used for the 

1749: BIM tension calculation (see Sec.III-A). 

1750: The transverse distance between 

1751: the actual boundary and the outer boundary 

1752: was chosen in most cases to be $\Delta L \sim 10\Delta s$. 

1753: Star: The selected point which is used 

1754: in Heller's implementation of the PWDM method. } 

1755: \\ \ \\ 

1756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1758:  

1759:  

1760: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1762: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=PhiChi,width=0.8\hsize}} 

1763: \vspace{.1in} 

1764: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.2:} 

1765: The eigenvectors of the Fredholm matrix (Eq.(\ref{e5})) 

1766: are found for $k = k_n = 6.82754592867694$. 

1767: {\bf Right plot:} The right-eigenvector $\Phi$. 

1768: The symbols (x) and (+) and (o) correspond respectively 

1769: to the PWDM choice of Eq.(\ref{e2}), 

1770: to the H1-BIM choice of Eq.(\ref{ea3}), 

1771: and to the J0-GFM choice of Eq.(\ref{e4}). 

1772: {\bf Left plot:} The left-eigenvector ${\mathsf C}$ 

1773: for the PWDM Fredholm matrix.} 

1774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1776:  

1777:  

1778:  

1779: \newpage 

1780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1782: \mpg{2.6cm}{(a) \\ \vspace*{5cm} \\ (b) \\ \vspace*{3cm} }

1783: {\epsfig{figure=estate,width=0.5\hsize}} 

1784: 

1785: \mpg{1.4cm}{(c) \\ \vspace*{3cm}}

1786: \epsfig{figure=Xsections,width=0.6\hsize} 

1787: 

1788: \vspace{.1in} 

1789: {\footnotesize FIG.3abc: See captions in the next page.} 

1790:  

1791: \mpg{0.5cm}{(d) \\ \vspace*{1.7cm}  \\  (e) \vspace*{1.7cm}  \\  (f) \vspace*{1.5cm}}

1792: \epsfig{figure=tensions,width=0.8\hsize} 

1793: \vspace{.1in} 

1794: 

1795: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.3:} 

1796: The eigenfunction at $k=k_n$ is found using 

1797: the eigenvectors of Fig.2. 

1798: (a) An image of $\Psi(x)$ using Eq.(\ref{e7}). 

1799: (b) The same using PWDM and Eq.(\ref{e6}). 

1800: (c) Plot of $\Psi(x)$ along the crossection 

1801: line of Fig.1. The vertical lines indicate 

1802: the location of the boundary. The wavefunctions 

1803: that correspond to images a-b are shown with (+) 

1804: and (x) respectively. We also show with (o) 

1805: the wavefunction that is obtained using J0-GFM 

1806: and Eq.(\ref{e6}). 

1807: Panels d-e-f display plots of $\log(|\Psi(x)|^2)$ 

1808: along the boundary. The symbols are as in c. } 

1809: \\ \ \\ 

1810: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1812:  

1813: 

1814: 

1815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1817: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=sinvals,width=0.8\hsize}} 

1818: 

1819: \vspace{.1in} 

1820: 

1821: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.4:} 

1822: Singular values of the Fredholm matrix 

1823: for $k_n=6.82754592867694$ ({\bf left panel}) 

1824: and for $k_n = 50.05474912004408$ ({\bf right panel}). 

1825: The various symbols are as in Fig.2. }  

1826: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1828:  

1829:  

1830: \newpage

1831: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1833: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Sk,width=0.65\hsize}} 

1834: 

1835: \mpg{1cm}{(c) \\ \vspace*{4cm}}

1836: {\epsfig{figure=Sk_BIM,width=0.65\hsize}} 

1837: 

1838: \mpg{1cm}{(d) \\ \vspace*{2cm}}

1839: {\epsfig{figure=Sk_PWDM,width=0.65\hsize}} 

1840: 

1841: \vspace{.1in} 

1842: 

1843: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.5:} 

1844: The tension as a function of $k$ in the vicinity 

1845: of $k_n=10.14707971517264$ (panels (a),(c),(d)), 

1846: and of $k_n=50.05474912004408$ (panel(b)). 

1847: In the upper panels (a-b) the full line is for the 

1848: PWDM constructed wavefunction, while the dashed line 

1849: is for the BIM constructed wavefunction. 

1850: For the low $k$ state we chose $b=4$, 

1851: while for the high $k$ we used $b=2$. 

1852: Panel (c) demonstrates the dependence 

1853: of the BIM tension on the choice of the distance $\Delta L$. 

1854: The different curves (from the upper to lower) 

1855: correspond to $\Delta L/\Delta s = 1,8,16,12,4$. 

1856: Panel (d) is a zoom over the PWDM minimum. } 

1857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1858: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1859:  

1860:  

1861: \newpage 

1862: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1863: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1864: \centerline{

1865: \epsfig{figure=TvsN1,width=0.5\hsize} 

1866: \epsfig{figure=TvsN2,width=0.5\hsize}

1867: } 

1868: 

1869: \vspace{.1in} 

1870: 

1871: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.6:} 

1872: The tension for the constructed eigenstate 

1873: versus the number $N$ of basis functions. 

1874: The {\bf left panel} is for the 

1875: $k_n = 2.40425657792391$ eigenstate, 

1876: and the {\bf right panel} is for the 

1877: $k_n = 6.82754592867694$ eigenstate. 

1878: The symbols (o) and (+) are for 

1879: the BIM and for the PWDM, respectively.} 

1880: \\ \ \\ 

1881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1883:  

1884:  

1885: \mpg{0.45\hsize}{ 

1886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1888: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Xtensions,width=\hsize}} 

1889: 

1890: \vspace{.1in} 

1891: 

1892: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.7:} 

1893: Plot of the error $|\Psi_r - \Psi_{exct}(X_r)|^2$, 

1894: along the cross-section line of Fig.1. 

1895: We refer here to the $k_n = 6.82754592867694$ eigenfunction. 

1896: The numerically `exact' wavefunction 

1897: is our best PWDM-constructed wavefunction ($N=69$) 

1898: with tension$=10^{-13}$. 

1899: The `non-exact' wavefunction is either 

1900: BIM-constructed (+) or PWDM-constructed (x), 

1901: with tension $\approx 10^{-8}$. 

1902: In the middle point the error is zero 

1903: by construction (see explanation in the text).} 

1904: \\ \ \\ \ \\ 

1905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1906: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1907: } 

1908: % 

1909: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 

1910: % 

1911: \mpg{0.45\hsize}{ 

1912: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1914: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=XtensvsN,width=\hsize}} 

1915: 

1916: \vspace{.1in} 

1917: 

1918: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.8:} 

1919: The averaged error in the 

1920: determination of the wavefunction, 

1921: versus the tension for the 

1922: $k_n =  6.82754592867694$ eigenfunction. 

1923: For the BIM-constructed wavefunction 

1924: we use squares and (o), 

1925: while for the PWDM one 

1926: we use (+) and (x). 

1927: The error has been determined with respect to

1928: the `exact' wavefunction $\Psi_{exct}$. 

1929: The latter is numerically defined as either 

1930: the best BIM eigenstate (squares and (+)) 

1931: or as the best PWDM one ((o) and (x)). 

1932: For both choices $\Psi_{exct}$ 

1933: had a tension better than $10^{-10}$. } 

1934: \\ \ \\

1935: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1936: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1937: } 

1938:  

1939:  

1940:  

1941:  

1942: \newpage 

1943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1944: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1945: 

1946: \mpg{0.7cm}{(a) \\ \vspace*{1.7cm}  \\  (b) \vspace*{1.7cm}  \\  (c) \vspace*{1.5cm}}

1947: {\epsfig{figure=det_k,width=0.72\hsize}} 

1948: 

1949: \mpg{1.5cm}{(d) \\ \vspace*{1.7cm}}

1950: {\epsfig{figure=det_BIM,width=0.65\hsize}} 

1951: 

1952: \mpg{1.5cm}{(e) \\ \vspace*{1.7cm}}

1953: {\epsfig{figure=det_PDM,width=0.65\hsize}}

1954: 

1955: \vspace{.1in} 

1956: 

1957: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.9:} 

1958: The Fredholm determinant ($S(k)$) 

1959: versus $k$ in the vicinity 

1960: of $k_n = 10.14707971517264$. 

1961: Note that $S(k)$ is normalized such 

1962: that $S(k)=1$ away from the minima.

1963: Panels a-b-c show $S(k)$

1964: in the cases of the H1-BIM, the Y1-BIM and the PWDM, respectively. 

1965: The lines plotted, 

1966: in order of decreasing $S(k)$ minimum, 

1967: correspond to $b=2,3,4,8$ in panel (a), 

1968: $b=4,8,13,12$ in panel (b) 

1969: and $b=2$ in panel (c). 

1970: The PWDM run in panel 

1971: (c) was repeated 3 times with different values of the 

1972: randomly chosen plane wave phases. 

1973: Panels (d) and (e) give a zoom over 

1974: the minima of panels (a) and (c), respectively. 

1975: We witness some numerical instabilities for both 

1976: the Y1-BIM and the PWDM, though in the latter 

1977: case it is much much weaker, and can be resolved 

1978: only in the zoomed plot (panel~(e)). 

1979: For larger $b$ values, the PWDM instability 

1980: is enhanced, and the results are reduced to 

1981: numerical garbage (not shown). } 

1982: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1983: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1984:  

1985:  

1986:  

1987: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1988: \end{document} 

1989: