the time delay between two dynamical systems can provide information on conduction velocity , and the nature and origin of coupling , between the processes . so it is necessary to use a well validated method for this purpose .
literature on time delay is vast and well documented in @xcite .
often , in physiological time series analysis , a single method can not be made unique to be applicable for a wide class of data stemming from the processes seemingly operated by similar mechanisms .
methods used for time delay estimation are no exception from this fact . here
, we use a spectral based method , maximising coherence , for the time delay estimation @xcite .
first , we apply this method to uni- and bi - directionally coupled rssler attractors with a known delay between the systems . in both cases ,
the results obtained are in good agreement within a narrow range of the delay used in the simulation .
then , we apply this method to simultaneously recorded traces of electroencephalogram ( eeg ) and electromyogram ( emg ) of subjects with essential tremor a well known pathological form of hand tremor .
we obtain a delay of 11 - 27 milli seconds ( @xmath0 ) between the tremor correlated cortical activity ( eeg ) and emg and the results are reasonably within the range of experimentally observed value for cortico - muscular transmission @xcite .
this result , further confirms the involvement of cortex in the generation of essential tremor @xcite .
the paper is organised as follows : in section 2 , we discuss in detail , the methodology of coherence analysis .
then , we extend the coherence analysis for time delay estimation . due to a time delay
there will be a time misalignment between the two time series thereby causing a reduction in the coherence estimated between them . in order to compensate for the reduction in coherence due to delay , we shift one of the time series keeping the other constant and estimate the coherence as a function of the shift .
this method has been successfully applied to estimate the time delay between the acoustic source and the receiving signals @xcite . on similar lines ,
phase synchronisation is used to estimate the time delay between and among the atmospheric variables observed at different meteorological sites @xcite . in section 3
, we apply this method to afore mentioned theoretical models . after validating the method by the results of standard models , in section 4
, we apply this method to estimate the time delay between the simultaneously recorded eeg and emg data of essential tremor subjects .
we discuss the results and conclude in section 5 .
let @xmath1 and @xmath2 be two simultaneously recorded data sets of length @xmath3 .
the mean and standard deviation of the two data sets are , respectively , set to zero and one .
we divide the data sets into @xmath4 disjoint segments of length @xmath5 , such that @xmath6 .
we calculate power spectra , @xmath7 , @xmath8 and cross spectrum @xmath9 , which is the fourier transform of the cross - correlation function of the signals @xmath1 and @xmath2 @xcite , in each segment . over cap in all the quantities
indicates that it is an estimate of that quantity .
finally , we average the power spectra and the cross - spectrum across all the segments and calculate coherence as follows @xcite , @xmath10 the coherence spectrum provides the strength of correlation between the two signals , @xmath1 and @xmath2 .
the confidence limit for coherence at the @xmath11 is given by @xmath12 .
thus , the coherence spectrum is always considered with this line . in all of our analysis , @xmath13 is set to 0.99 , and hence the confidence limit is @xmath14 .
the estimated value of coherence , at a frequency , above this line indicates ( a ) significant coherence between the two time series at this frequency ; ( b ) the magnitude ( deviation of coherence from this line ) determines the degree of linear correlation between the two time series at this frequency .
the estimated value of coherence at a frequency below this line is considered as the lack of correlation between the two time series at this frequency .
if the sampling frequency of the signals is @xmath15 @xmath16 ( i.e. @xmath17 number of data points are sampled per second ) , then the frequency resolution of the quantities in eq .
1 , is @xmath18 .
thus , one should optimally choose the value of @xmath5 depending on the purpose of analysis , to compromise between the sensitivity and reliability .
usage of the fixed segment length @xmath5 is questioned and a variable segment length is suggested in @xcite , to make quantitative assessment of the signal .
but , for all practical purposes , a fixed segment length is easily implementable and hence , it is used in the forthcoming analysis .
while the coherence spectrum provides the strength of correlation between the two signals @xmath1 and @xmath2 , time ( delay ) information between the two signals can be obtained from the phase spectrum , which is the argument of the cross - spectrum @xcite , @xmath19 following @xcite , eq .
2 can be further simplified to see the explicit appearance of the time delay in it as follows , @xmath20 where @xmath21 is the time delay .
the phase estimate @xmath22 and its upper and lower 95% confidence interval are given by @xcite @xmath23^\frac12 .
\eqno 4\ ] ] thus , the confidence interval of the phase estimate is inversely related to coherence . in the rest of the paper we use estimates of the coherence and phase without the over hat for the sake of convenience .
one of the conventional ways to estimate a time delay , in frequency domain , is to fit a straight line to the phase spectrum ( eq .
3 ) in the frequency band of significant coherence , as the phase can be reliably estimated only in the frequency band of significant coherence ( see eq .
this method of estimating delay is possible when we have a broad band coherence and limits its applicability to the narrow band coherent signals . in some cases
, coherence extends to first harmonic and hence the phase values at the harmonics are used to increase the reliability of the delay estimate @xcite .
further , if two time series show significant coherence over a wide range of frequency band , but have a minimal phase relation , then the estimation of time delay from the phase estimate is not straight forward . under such conditions , phase estimate , in addition to the @xmath24 term ( see eq .
3 ) , will also contain a frequency dependent factor , namely , the argument of the transfer function , @xmath25 .
in such cases , @xmath26 is estimated by hilbert transform , and then delay is estimated from the phase estimate after subtracting the estimated transfer function from the phase estimate @xcite . from the above discussion
it is clear that phase estimates can not be used to estimate the delay from narrow band coherent signals which are often observed in human physiological data @xcite . for this purpose ,
we use the method of maximising coherence .    as discussed in the last part of the introduction
, a delay @xmath21 between two time series , will cause a reduction in the estimated coherence between them . in order to compensate for the reduction in coherence due to delay and thereby to estimate the delay ,
we realign the time series by artificially shifting them . for this , we shift one of the time series by a lag @xmath27 keeping the other constant and consider coherence at the selected frequency band @xmath28 as a function of @xmath29 , @xmath30 and repeat the same for the other time series . if there is a delay between the two time series , coherence in the selected frequency band @xmath30 will increase from its value at @xmath31 and reach a maximum at the @xmath29 corresponding to @xmath21 . after shifting one of the time series by a lag @xmath29
, the length of the shifted time series will be less than the un - shifted time series by @xmath32 ( @xmath29 in sample units ) data points .
we discard the extra data points in the un - shifted time series to have the same length for both time series .
further , coherence is a relative measure and changes with the length of the data .
it is reflected in the 99% confidence level ( see above ) .
for each shift , we discard the points corresponding to the maximum lag from the entire length of the time series , and consider only the length of the data which is integer multiple of @xmath5 . by doing so , coherence
@xmath30 calculated for all the lags will have the same confidence level , thereby confirming that the maximum value of coherence is reached only because of the delay and not due to the spurious effects caused in estimating coherence for different lengths of data . as we have confidence level as a check for the reliability of @xmath21 , we do nt need any additional tests like , surrogate tests @xcite to assess the reliability of the results .
however , in order to get the variability in the estimated delay , we use surrogate analysis .
surrogate analysis is introduced in the context of nonlinear time series analysis to check whether or not the time series under consideration has got a nonlinear structure @xcite . making the ( null ) hypothesis that the time series has come from a linear process , several linear realizations of the time series namely ,
surrogates , are synthesised .
then , the original time series and the surrogates are quantified by a suitable discriminating statistic .
any deviation in the discriminating statistic calculated for the original time series and surrogates indicates the presence of nonlinear structure in the original time series and thereby rejecting the null hypothesis @xcite .
there are different ways of preparing the surrogates @xcite .
the misconception of surrogate analysis is discussed in @xcite . as mentioned above , the objective of the methods to generate surrogates @xcite is to synthesise a new data set by destroying the nonlinear structure present in the original data set .
but our aim is not to show the presence of nonlinear structure in our data .
for the purpose of calculating the error - bars of delay , surrogates are generated by exploiting one of the basic assumptions of spectral analysis that distinct parts of the time series are independent @xcite .
instead of shuffling the time series as a whole ( which is done in one of the methods to synthesise surrogates , amplitude adjusted surrogates ) we shuffle the disjoint data segments from which the original spectrum is estimated ( see above ) .
we shuffle only the un - shifted time series ( see above ) from which the information is assumed to flow to the other time series ( which is time shifted in advance in maximising coherence analysis ) with a delay . by doing so , the spectra of both the time series , @xmath33 and @xmath34 in eq
. 1 will remain the same but the cross spectrum @xmath35 in eq .
1 will be different .
this type of surrogate is similar to the one proposed in @xcite where the whole time series is shuffled but by preserving two point correlation ( i.e. power spectrum ) of the original time series .
for all the analyses reported in this paper we synthesise 19 different realizations of surrogates .
we make a null hypothesis that @xmath30 obtained is due to spurious correlations between the two time series . for each realization of surrogate
we calculate time delayed coherence @xmath36 .
we calculate the significance of difference @xmath37 between the @xmath36 calculated for surrogates and @xmath30 where @xmath38}$ ] , where @xmath39 indicates the average over different realizations of surrogates and @xmath40 $ ] indicates the standard deviation between different realizations of surrogates .
any value of @xmath41 indicates that the @xmath30 obtained is not due to spurious correlations @xcite and hence the null hypothesis is rejected .
if the null hypothesis is rejected we consider @xmath30 for further analysis otherwise we discard it as spurious correlation .
for the @xmath30 qualified in the surrogate analysis ( for which null hypothesis is rejected ) we calculate the error in the delay in the following way : we subtract @xmath36 calculated for each realization from @xmath30 and calculate delay for each subtracted function ( i.e. ) @xmath42 .
we report here the delay of the system as the mean value of the delays ( calculated for the 19 surrogate subtracted realizations ) and their standard deviation as error - bar . as the increase in the @xmath30 when compensated for the delay
is very small , for the sake of clarity we plot @xmath43 -\left[c(\omega_0)-<c(\omega_0)^{surr}>\right]$ ] .
note that @xmath44 is the value of @xmath30 at @xmath31 and @xmath45 is the average of @xmath36 for different realizations of the surrogates at @xmath31 . by this definition @xmath46 will pass through a zero value at @xmath31 and show a maximum value ( above zero ) at @xmath47 ( for @xmath48 ) between the processes .
though we calculate @xmath37 for different @xmath29 values at which @xmath30 is evaluated , we report here @xmath49 as it is the most relevant one in determining the significance of the @xmath50 ( and hence @xmath51 ) . based on the above arguments
the delay between the two time series is given by : @xmath52
in this section , we apply the method of maximising coherence , to coupled rssler systems .
the dynamics of the @xmath53-th attractor is given as follows :    @xmath54~+~\epsilon_{j , i}~x_j(t-\delta ) \nonumber \\
\dot{y}_i(t)&=&x_i(t)~+~a~y_i(t ) \nonumber \\
~\dot{z}_i(t )   & = & b~+~z_i(t)~[x_i(t)~+~c ] \nonumber , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath55 , are the parameters .
coupling is established through the @xmath56 component between the attractors .
@xmath57 , is the coupling constant and @xmath58 is the @xmath59 component of the @xmath60th attractor . in our study , we consider the dynamics of two coupled rssler attractors , and hence @xmath61 and @xmath62 and @xmath21 is the delay .
further , we do nt consider the self coupling of the oscillators .     and
@xmath21 is set to 2 sec.,width=192 ]    first , we consider the coupling scheme as shown in fig .
1 , where two rssler attractors are coupled and the information flow is from attractor 2 to attractor 1 ( @xmath64 and @xmath63 ) as governed by the above set of equations .
@xmath21 is set to 2 sec .
the above equations are simulated by euler scheme with a step size of 0.01 sec and for the subsequent analysis the data are down sampled to 0.1 sec .
as the coupling is established through the @xmath59 component between the attractors , we use the @xmath59 time series to perform the delay estimation .
we have used 30000 data points for further analysis .
power spectra of the two attractors are shown in fig 2a .
solid line represents the power spectrum of attractor 1 and solid line with dots represents the power spectrum of attractor 2 . for the sake of clarity the spectrum of attractor 1
is shifted vertically upwards by a factor of 5 from its original position .
we have used a segment length of @xmath65 and hence the frequency resolution ( of the quantities in eq .
1 ) is 0.01 @xmath16 .
spectra show dominant activities in the frequency range of 0.1 to 0.2 @xmath16 , which can be related to the mean orbital period of @xmath66 sec of the attractor @xcite . since the dynamics of the attractor 1 is perturbed by coupling
( see fig .
1 ) , its spectrum looks slightly different from that of the attractor 2 .
the coherence spectrum of the coupled attractors is shown in fig .
horizontal line around the coherence of 0.15 indicates the confidence level of @xmath67 .    in the frequency band between 0.1 - 0.2 @xmath16 ( see fig .
2a ) , where the individual attractors show dominant activities , the coupled systems show significant coherence .
estimated phase ( eq .
2 ) between the coupled attractors is shown in fig . 2c .
error - bars represent the 95% confidence interval of the phase estimate given by eq .
4 . thus the phase can be reliably estimated in the frequency band ( 0.1 - 0.2 @xmath16 ) , where the coupled attractors show a significant coherence ( see fig .
the result of maximising coherence is shown in fig .
2d where @xmath46 is plotted as a function of lag @xmath29 .
we have chosen @xmath68 ( and is shown in fig .
2b ) from the basic frequency of the oscillators .
solid line at @xmath69 indicates @xmath70(see the last part of the methodology for details ) .
negative shift indicates that the time series of attractor 1 is in advance and positive shift indicates that the time series of attractor 2 is in advance . since there is a delay of 2 sec , the coherence calculated at @xmath31 is zero ( see above ) . in order to compensate for the reduction in the coherence and thereby to estimate the time delay , time series of the attractors
are shifted by a time lag @xmath29 .
as the delayed information flows from attractor 2 to attractor 1 , coherence @xmath46 increases from zero ( see above ) when the time series of attractor 1 is shifted * back * in time and reaches a maximum at the @xmath71 which is the time delay between the two time series ( @xmath21 used in the simulation is 2 sec ) .
the significance of deviation from the surrogate data @xmath72 is 2.24 and indicates that @xmath73 is not due to spurious correlations .
the error - bar for the delay ( as explained in the methodology section ) is calculated as 0.4 sec .
thus , the time delay @xmath74 is @xmath75 sec and is well captured by the maximising coherence analysis ( expected delay value is 2 sec for the flow from attractor 2 to attractor 1 ) .     sec .
horizonal line at the coherence of 0.15 indicates the confidence level ( @xmath67 ) . there is a significant coherence in the frequency range of 0.1 - 0.2 @xmath16 between the two attractors .
the value of @xmath28 used for maximising coherence analysis is indicated along with its coherence value @xmath44 .
phase estimate @xmath76 of the coupled attractors .
error - bars represent 95% confidence interval defined by eq .
errors are relatively small in the region of significant coherence which is in accordance to eq .
4 . ( d ) .
coherence @xmath46 , as the function of lag @xmath29 . horizontal line at @xmath69 indicates @xmath77 .
@xmath39 represents the average over different surrogates .
@xmath46 has reached the maximum value at the @xmath29 ( delay ) value of -2.1 sec ( from attractor 2 to 1 ) , and the expected value of @xmath21 is 2 sec for the flow from attractor 2 to attractor 1 .
the significance of deviation from the surrogate @xmath72 is 2.24 and indicates that @xmath46 is not due to spurious correlations.,width=480,height=432 ]    next , we consider the coupling scheme as shown in fig .
3 , where two rssler attractors are coupled as considered above , but with a bi - directional flow , @xmath78 and @xmath79 . @xmath21 used in the coupling is same as in fig .
1 , which is 2 sec .     and @xmath79 .
@xmath21 is set to 2 sec.,width=192 ]    power spectra of the attractors look almost the same as the two attractors perturb each other almost to the same extent ( see fig .
4a ) . as obtained for uni - directional coupling , in this case also , significant coherence is between 0.1 - 0.2 @xmath16 ( fig .
4b ) . as the number of data points used is the same ( 30000 ) as in the uni - directional coupling , the confidence level @xmath67 is also around the coherence of 0.15 ( see the horizontal line in fig .
4 b which is same as in fig .
phase estimate of the bi - directionally coupled systems is shown in fig .
4c with the 95 % confidence interval as the error - bars .
error - bars are relatively narrow ( see eq .
4 ) in the frequency band of 0.1 - 0.2 @xmath16 where significant coherence is observed ( as seen in fig .
result of the maximising coherence for bi - directionally coupled systems is shown in fig .
4d . the horizontal line at @xmath80 has the meaning as in fig .
in this case 0.15 @xmath16 is used as @xmath28 ( and is shown in fig .
4b ) which is the basic frequency of the attractors .
@xmath46 shows two maxima , one at @xmath81 sec which corresponds to the flow from attractor 2 to 1 and another at @xmath82 sec which corresponds to the flow from attractor 1 to 2 , while the @xmath21 used in the coupling is 2 sec in both directions ( see fig .
4d ) . also , in this case , the significance of deviation from surrogate calculated by @xmath37 at @xmath29 values -2.5 sec and 1.7 sec are well above 2 ( see fig .
4d ) indicating that the @xmath46 obtained at these two @xmath29 values are not due to spurious correlations .
thus , the time delays of the system are @xmath83 sec ( for the flow from attractor 2 to attractor 1 ) and @xmath84 sec ( for the flow from attractor 1 to attractor 2 ) and are well within the expected value of 2 sec in either direction ( see fig .
the error - bars are obtained by surrogate analysis .     and @xmath79 .
result of maximising coherence @xmath46 .
@xmath46 has reached maximum value at two places , one at -2.5 sec ( from attractor 2 to 1 ) and another at 1.7 sec ( from attractor 1 to 2 ) , where @xmath21 is set to 2 sec in both directions .
the significance of deviation from surrogate at @xmath85 is 6.60 and at @xmath86 is 3.25 and indicates that @xmath87 at @xmath29 values -2.5 sec and 1.7 sec are not due to spurious correlations .
the horizontal line at @xmath80 has the same meaning as in fig .
2d.,width=480,height=432 ]    results of the theoretically coupled systems are summarised in fig .
5 . for the unidirectional flow , shown in fig .
1 , which is referred to as scenario 1 in fig . 5 , the value of the delay obtained by maximising coherence , shown by @xmath88 with the error - bars ( calculated by surrogate analysis ) shown as vertical line , is close to the expected value of -2 sec ( shown as dot in fig .
similarly for the bi - directional flow ( see fig .
3 ) which is referred to as scenario 2 in fig . 5 ,
the values of the delay obtained by maximising coherence with their error - bars ( vertical lines ) are close to the expected delay of 2 sec in either direction ( see fig .
3 ) . compared to the unidirectional flow , the results of the bi - directionally coupled oscillators show slightly more deviations from the expected value of 2 sec
but when we include the error - bar , they are close to the expected value .
so when dealing with the biological systems we should consider the delay always with the error - bar before we draw any conclusion from it . for the uni - directionally coupled oscillators there is no significant change in the result when @xmath28 is chosen as 0.19 @xmath16 where there is a significant coherence between the two oscillators .
further for the above studied systems similar results can be obtained by cross - correlation analysis and by the time delayed phase synchronisation analysis as well @xcite .
. vertical lines are the error - bars of delay ( see text for details).,width=384,height=288 ]
tremor is an involuntary , periodic movement of the parts of the body @xcite .
it can be classified as normal and pathological tremor depending on amplitude and the conditions under which tremor is activated @xcite .
essential tremor is a common movement disorder characterised mostly by postural tremor of the arms .
other neurological abnormalities are typically absent in essential tremor @xcite .
it has been shown by experimental studies in animals @xcite and by positron emission tomography or functional magnetic resonance imaging studies @xcite on human beings , that different parts of the brain are involved in essential tremor .
the correlation between the thalamic activity and forearm electromyogram provides a direct evidence for the involvement of the thalamus in the tremor oscillations @xcite .
further , control of essential tremor by stereo - tactic lesions and high frequency stimulation of the ventrolateral thalamus adds support for the involvement of thalamus in the mechanism of essential tremor @xcite . as the cerebellum has its main outputs to thalamus which in turn has strong projections to cortex , it is hypothesised that essential tremor arise from an oscillating cerebello - thalamo - cortical loop the output station of which is the motor cortex @xcite .    .
for the sake of clarity , the power spectrum of eeg is shifted vertically upwards from its original position by a factor of 10 .
coherence spectrum of c4 and extensor muscle .
the horizontal line at the coherence of 0.024 indicates the confidence level of @xmath67 . there is a significant coherence at the ( tremor ) frequency of 5 @xmath16 and at 10 - 15 @xmath16 as well .
the value of @xmath28 used for the maximising coherence is shown along with its coherence value @xmath44 .
phase estimate of the c4 and extensor muscle with 95% confidence interval as the error - bars .
error - bars are narrow at the significantly coherent frequency bands of 5 @xmath16 and 10 - 15 @xmath16 as well .
coherence as a function of @xmath29 , @xmath46 .
it has reached maximum at @xmath89 @xmath0 .
the horizontal line at @xmath80 has the same meaning as in fig .
the significance of deviation from the surrogate is given as @xmath90.,width=480,height=432 ]    cortico - muscular coherence for essential tremor has been studied earlier @xcite but has not been ascertained at the tremor frequency in @xcite .
we show below that there is a significant cortico - muscular coherence when the signal to noise ratio of the tremor increases beyond a certain threshold value as seen in @xcite .
since the paper is aimed at time delay estimation , the detailed results and discussion of the spectral analysis of the tremor study will be reported elsewhere @xcite .    for this purpose
we consider five patients ( with mean age 66 years and standard deviation 5.1 years ) , which showed postural essential tremor of the arms . in a dimly lighted room , patients are asked to sit on a comfortable chair in a slightly supine position with both hands held against gravity while the forearms are supported .
eeg is recorded with a 64-channel eeg system ( neuroscan ) with standard electrode positions @xcite .
surface emg is recorded from emg electrodes attached to wrist flexors and extensors of both arms .
for all the subjects eeg and emg are sampled at a rate of 1000 @xmath16 .
eeg and emg are bandpass filtered online , respectively , between 0.01 - 200 @xmath16 and 30 - 200 @xmath16 .
data are stored in a computer and are analysed offline . in all the cases emg
is recorded on both hands .
each recording lasted for 1 - 4 minutes .
artifacts like base line shift , eye blinks etc . are discarded by visual inspection .    before further analysis , emg signals are full wave rectified ( magnitude of the deviations from mean ) and eeg is made reference free by constructing the second ( spatial ) derivative , ( laplacian ) @xcite .
we discuss in detail for one of the subjects , subject 1 , which we feel typical and for the remaining subjects we summarise the results in a table .    for subject 1 ,
the power spectra of eeg ( solid line ) and emg ( solid line with dots ) , see fig .
6a , are calculated with @xmath65 and hence the frequency resolution is 1 @xmath16 ( since @xmath91 @xmath16 ) . in fig .
6a , we show the power spectra of one of the eeg channels ( c4 ) in the contralateral ( right ) side to tremor ( left ) hand and the rectified emg ( extensor muscle ) of the same hand .
power spectrum of eeg ( shown as solid line in fig .
6a ) is shifted vertically upwards by a factor of 10 from its initial position for the sake of clarity .
power spectrum of eeg shows dominant activity in a broad band between 8 - 20 @xmath16 containing the bands of 10 - 13 @xmath16 and 15 - 20 @xmath16 , which correspond , respectively , to the alpha and beta activity of the brain @xcite .
muscle spectrum ( solid line with dots in fig .
6a ) shows tremor activity around 5 @xmath16 .
correlation between the muscle and c4 ( the central electrode overlaying the primary motor cortex , pmc ) of eeg can not be guessed from the eeg spectrum as there is no significant activity around 5 @xmath16 ( tremor frequency ) .
correlation becomes clear when we consider coherence .
figure 6b shows coherence between c4 and extensor muscle .
the horizontal line around the coherence of 0.024 indicates the confidence level of @xmath67 . there is a significant coherence ( and hence correlation ) between c4 and the tremor activity reflected by the muscle @xcite and also in the frequency band of 10 - 15 @xmath16 .
phase estimate of this system is given in fig .
6c with @xmath92 confidence interval as error - bars .
it is clear from fig . 6c
that phase can be reliably estimated at the ( tremor and the significant coherence ) frequency of 5 @xmath16 ( confidence interval is narrow ) and also in the frequency band of 10 - 15 @xmath16 . in an earlier study _ hellwig et al . _
@xcite investigated time delays based on the value of the phase estimate @xmath22 at the * tremor frequency*. but the results obtained @xcite are not in the interpretable level .
the reason postulated in @xcite that the delay might be modulated by frequency dependent mechanism is hardly conceivable in a narrow ( single ) frequency band at which phase estimate is significant .
the reason may be due to the weak assumption of the model @xmath93 , where @xmath94 is the indispensable constant @xcite , phase shift between the two processes which is ignored in @xcite .
however , we show below that the delay estimated by maximising coherence is reasonably in good agreement with the experimentally observed conduction velocity and is in physiologically interpretable range .
application of the maximising coherence method to real life data like eeg is not straight forward .
since the maximising coherence method is aimed at to capture the time delay ( by making up for the reduction in the coherence ) by artificially shifting ( local dynamics ) the time series , it is very sensitive to non - stationarities in the time series .
however , in order to make coherence analysis robust against non - stationarities within the time series , we use the following way to discard the non - stationary parts of the data : we calculate autocorrelation function @xcite , in each of the segments ( of length 1000 samples ) . then the de - correlation time , time
at which autocorrelation function falls to @xmath95 ( as the first value of autocorrelation function is 1 by definition ) @xcite is calculated for all the segments .
non - stationarities due to base line shift , eye blinks will introduce artificial trends ( lifting up of the mean value of the signal ) @xcite in the signal , which will have higher de - correlation time than the stationary parts of the signal . in order to discard the non - stationary parts ,
about 50 % of the median of the de - correlation time calculated in all the segments is taken as threshold and parts of the eeg and emg data with de - correlation time greater than the above defined threshold are discarded in the delay estimation .
after discarding the non - stationary parts of the data , the segments left out on either side of the removed parts are stitched as if they are recorded continously .
of course , care should be taken in applying the above method .
the above method will capture only the non - stationary parts if it is applied to the data of low signal to noise ratio which can be avoided by visual inspection of the data .
result of the delay estimation between c4 and muscle , is shown in fig .
6d . the horizontal line at @xmath69 in fig . 6d
has the same meaning as in fig .
here , we have used @xmath96 @xmath16 ( see fig .
6b ) , where significant coherence is observed .
negative shift indicates that the time series of eeg is in advance . in fig .
6d , @xmath46 reaches a maximum value at @xmath89 @xmath0 , indicating the cortex ( time series of emg is in advance for positive values of @xmath29 ) is driving the tremor .
the significance of deviation from the surrogate is given by @xmath97 and indicates that @xmath46 obtained is not due to spurious correlations .
the error - bar obtained by surrogate analysis is 7 @xmath0 and hence the delay obtained for c4 is 16@xmath987 @xmath0 which is in good agreement with the experimentally observed value of around 15 @xmath0 @xcite .
comparison of fig . 6d with fig .
2d , shows that the information flow is in one direction ( i.e. ) from cortex to muscle .
but in other subjects , in ( an electrode from ) this region , we have also observed a bi - directional flow , a situation similar to fig . 4d .     in this case ) .
magnitude of the coherence is indicated by the gray scale - bar juxtaposed to the isocoherence map .
parts of the scalp which showed significant coherence are coloured black and the confidence level of @xmath67 is marked with white colour ( which is set to zero , see text for details ) .
( electrodes o5-o6 are just displayed and are not used for coherence analysis).,width=528 ]    of the 64-channels of eeg recorded , coherence and delay estimation are explained in detail for c4 , as it is overlaying the primary sensorimotor cortex which is involved in motor control of the contralateral hand affected by essential tremor .
for the rest of the electrodes ( see fig .
7a ) we give the results of the coherence analysis as isocoherence ( region of scalp with same coherence ) map . electrodes on the boundary of the scalp are not considered for the analysis as they had low signal to noise ratio .
further , we have not used the electrodes o5 - o6 for the study . to construct isocoherence map ,
we have considered the coherence @xmath99 at the ( tremor ) frequency of 5 @xmath16 for all the thirty five channels ( see above ) shown in fig .
7a , from f5 ( top left of scalp , fig .
7a ) , to p6 ( bottom right of scalp , fig .
we have subtracted the confidence level ( @xmath67 ) from the coherence so that the confidence level for coherence is zero . in fig .
7b , surface of the scalp exhibiting significant coherence is marked with black colour and the coherence of the parts which do not cross the confidence level of @xmath67 ( which are set to zero after the above normalisation ) are marked with white colour . in fig .
7b , c4 shows maximum coherence , ( see the gray scale - bar juxtaposed to fig .
thus , there is a hot spot ( region of significant coherence ) in the pmc region .
similar results have been obtained in the spectral study of essential tremor @xcite .
there is another hot spot for subject 1 in the frontal region of the scalp ( fcz ) .
the detailed discussion of this will be dealt with in @xcite .     in fig .
8 ( a - f ) has the same meaning as in fig .
the significance of deviation from the surrogate @xmath37 at @xmath47 is given in all the plots .
estimated values of delay by maximising coherence are ( c ) -28 @xmath0 ( d ) -2 @xmath100 0 @xmath0 ( e ) -30 @xmath0 and 31 @xmath0 ( f ) 25 @xmath0 . as the maximum of @xmath101 in fig .
8f is not clearly discernable ( see text for details ) it is magnified in the inset shown in fig .
negative shift indicates that the time series of eeg is in advance and positive shift indicates that the time series of emg is in advance .
a negative delay indicates the flow from muscle to eeg and a positive delay indicates the flow from eeg to muscle .
c2 and c6 do not qualify in the surrogate analysis as their @xmath49 values lie below 2 indicating that the values of @xmath46 ( see fig . 8a and 8b ) obtained for these two electrodes
are due to spurious correlations and therefore are not considered for further analysis . , width=384,height=528 ]    spectral and delay estimations for c4 and extensor muscle have been analysed in detail showing a uni - directional flow from pmc to muscle , with a delay of 16 @xmath0 . for the rest of the electrodes
( c2 , c6 , cp2 , cp4 , cp6 ) of the central hot spot and fcz of the frontal hot spot , the results of delay estimation are given in fig .
the significance of deviation from surrogate @xmath37 at @xmath47 is given in all the plots , see fig .
8(a - f ) . for c2 (
8a ) and c6 ( fig .
8b ) the value of @xmath49 is below two indicating that the values of @xmath46 obtained for these two electrodes are due to spurious correlations .
therefore we do not consider them for further analysis .
for cp2 , cp4 , cp6 and fcz , @xmath49 values obtained are above 2 ( see fig .
8(c - f ) ) indicating that @xmath46 values obtained for these electrodes are not due to spurious correlations .
delay values exhibited by @xmath30 shown in fig .
8(c - f ) are cp2 -28 @xmath98 3.3 @xmath0 ( see fig .
8c ) , cp4 , -2 @xmath100 0 @xmath0 ( see fig .
8d ) , cp6 -30 @xmath98 7.4 and 31 @xmath98 13.5 @xmath0 ( see fig .
8e ) and fcz 25 @xmath98 10.4 @xmath0 ( see fig .
the maximum in @xmath102 for fcz shown in fig .
8f is not clearly discernable and hence this region is magnified in the inset shown in fig .
8f where the maximum at @xmath103 can be seen without any ambiguity . the large fluctuations in @xmath46 for fcz ( fig
. 8f ) and c4 ( fig .
6d ) indicate larger uncertainty in the delay estimated by this method and is one of the shortcomings of this method .
however , this uncertainty , to some extent is revealed by the error - bars ( see above ) obtained by the surrogate analysis .
a positive value of @xmath29 indicates that the time series of muscle is in advance and a negative value of @xmath29 indicates that the time series of eeg is in advance .
error - bars are obtained by surrogate analysis as discussed in the methodology section . a zero delay for cp4 ( see fig .
8d ) may be due to the nullification of two strong counter acting forces ( drive from pmc to muscle and opposing drive from muscle to pmc , a situation similar to phase locking in coupled oscillators ) .
the positive values of estimated delays including the error - bars are well in agreement with the experimentally observed value of 15 @xmath0 for forearm muscles @xcite . for the negative delay ( flow from muscle to eeg ) , it is at least partly in keeping with normal median somatosensory evoked potential ( sep ) latencies of around 20 @xmath0 .
further , in order to make the delay statistically significant we report the delay of the hot spot as a whole as the delay of the system , by weighting the delay obtained for each electrode ( when it is qualified in surrogate analysis ) by a fraction of the coherence @xmath44 value that each electrode contributes to the hot spot . by doing so , electrodes showing higher tremor related correlations will contribute more to the delay of the system . for subject 1 , there is a hot spot ( central hot spot ) in the pmc region of scalp and another in the frontal region of the scalp ( i.e. ) fcz ( see fig .
7b ) . of the electrodes contributing to the central hot spot
, we do not consider c2 and c6 ( as they do not qualify in the surrogate analysis ) for further analysis .
we weight the delay obtained for rest of the electrodes contributing to the central hot spot by @xmath104 , where @xmath105 is the number of electrodes contributing to hot spot after qualifying the surrogate analysis , and @xmath106 $ ] % is the contribution of the @xmath107th electrode to the hot spot ( it is easy to check that @xmath108 ) . similarly @xmath109 is calculated for each hot spot .
further , in the calculation of @xmath109 for positive delay , only those electrodes which display positive delay are considered and similarly for negative delay , only those electrodes which display negative delay are considered . for subject 1 ,
only one electrode , fcz contributes to the frontal hot spot , for which @xmath110 .
we have normalised the error - bars of the delays in a similar way .
the final values of delay for both the hot spots are given in table 1 along with the delay values obtained by maximising coherence analysis for four other subjects .
.summary of delay estimation by maximising coherence for five essential tremor subjects .
positive and negative signs are introduced in maximising coherence analysis just to denote the directions of information flow and have got no real life significance . [ cols="^,^,^,^,^ " , ]     of the five subjects considered three show an additional hot spot in the frontal region the delay values of which are also given in table 1 ( see third column ) .
as can be seen there is also a cortico - muscular delay between the frontal hot spot and the periphery in all three cases .
however , this delay is about double the cortico - muscular delay from the central hot spot .
these results indicate that both the central area most likely corresponding to the primary sensorimotor cortex and more frontal area are involved in the generation of essential tremor .
while the delays from the central area ( pmc ) between 11 and 16 @xmath0 are in keeping with a direct transmission through fast conducting pyramidal pathways @xcite the cortico - muscular delay from the more frontal area rather indicates another way of interaction with the periphery .
thus the method of maximising coherence is capable of distinguishing different types of cortico - muscular interactions which are relevant to the understanding of the pathophysiology of essential tremor , for details see @xcite .
the musculo - cortical delays partly agree but are generally slightly lower than the somatosensory conduction delays known from routine sep studies and most likely reflect feed back of the peripheral tremor to the cortex .
we have used the method of maximising coherence to obtain the time delay between two series . as a test case
, we applied this method to uni- and bi - directionally coupled rssler attractors . in both cases ,
the delays estimated by maximising coherence match well with the expected values , within the error limits which are obtained by surrogate analysis .
for eeg - emg time series of essential tremor subjects , this method yields a delay in the range of 11 to 16 @xmath0 for the primary sensorimotor area and 23 - 27 @xmath0 for the more frontal area involved in the tremor oscillation whereas the experimentally observed value of the conduction time between primary cortex and muscle is 15 @xmath98 2 @xmath0 @xcite .
the larger delay observed for the frontal area may indicate a different , possibly indirect interaction with the periphery .
the musculo - cortical delays ( 9 to 24 @xmath0 ) are partly in keeping with the delay observed ( around 20 @xmath0 ) in sep studies .
one of the reasons for the slight deviation of the delay from experimentally observed value may be as follows : we have employed maximising coherence method to capture the delay between two series , assuming that there will be a continuous delayed flow of information from one time series to another .
but , it may not be the case in biological data like eeg and emg . intermittently the flow may be absent .
one way to check out this is to divide the time series into small sub - portions and calculate the time delay in each portion .
but coherence analysis needs at least a minimum of 30000 data points to decide statistically whether or not the two time series under study are linearly correlated .
so we need to analyse the nature of information flows using the nonlinear methods like extended granger causality @xcite , transfer entropy @xcite .
this issue will be addressed in our future work .
of course other methods like cross - correlation analysis and time delayed phase synchronisation analysis @xcite can be used to estimate the delay between the eeg and emg of the essential tremor subjects .
but the problems in using cross - correlation are addressed in @xcite and references therein .
there exists an analytical expression for the confidence limit for coherence estimate but this is lacking for phase synchronisation used in @xcite .
that is the reason why phase synchronisation is not commonly used for correlation analysis ( subsequently for delay analysis in this work ) though this method is expected to be superior to coherence analysis @xcite .
however comparison of the different methods of delay estimation is beyond the scope of the current paper .
t.  mller , m.  lauk , m.  reinhard , a.  hetzel , c.h .
lcking , j.  timmer , annals of biomedical engineering , 31 ( 2003 ) 1423 .
m.  lindemann , j.  raethjen , j.  timmer , g.  deuschl , g.  pfister , j. neurosci .
meth . , 111 ( 2001 ) 127 .
carter , proc .
ieee , 75 ( 1987 ) 236 .
rothwell , p.d .
thompson , b.l .
day , s.  boyd , c.d .
marsden , exp .
physiol . , 76 ( 1991 ) 159 .
b.  hellwig , s. huler , b.  schelter , m.  lauk , g.  guschlbauer , j.  timmer , c.h .
lcking , lancet , 357 ( 2001 ) 519 .
d.  rybski , s.  havlin , a.  bunde , physica a , 320 ( 2003 ) 601 . d.m .
halliday , j.r .
rosenberg , a.m.  amjad , p.  breeze , b.a .
conway , s.f .
farmer , prog .
biol . , 64 ( 1995 ) 237 .
j.  timmer , m.  lauk , g.  deuschl , electroencephalogr .
neurophysiol . , 101 ( 1996 ) 461
. s.  salenius , s.  avikainen , s.  kaakkola , r.  hari , p.  brown , brain , 125 ( 2002 ) 491 .
j. raethjen , r.b .
govindan , f. kopper , g. deuschl , brain ( in preparation ) .
nonlinear time series analysis , edited by h.  kantz and t.  schreiber ( cambridge university press , 1997 ) .
j.  theiler , a.  longtin , b.  galdrikan , j.d .
farmer , physica d , 58 ( 1992 ) 77 .
t.  schreiber , a.  schmitz , phys .
77 ( 1996 ) 635 .
j.  timmer , phys .
lett . , 85 ( 2000 ) 2647 .
k.  narayanan , r.b .
govindan , m.s .
gopinathan , phys .
e , 57 ( 1998 ) 4594 .
a.  wolf , j.b .
swift , l.  swinney , a.  vastano , physica d , 16 ( 1985 ) 285 .
g.  deuschl , p.  bain , m.  brin , scientific committee , mov .
disord . , 13 ( 1998 ) 2 .
findley , w.c .
koller , neurology , 37 ( 1987 ) 1194 .
r.  llin@xmath111s , r.a .
volkind , exp .
brain res . , 18 ( 1973 ) 69
. y.  lamarre , animal models of physiological , essential and parkinsonian - like tremors .
editors l.j .   findley and r.  capildeo , movement disorders : tremor .
( macmillan press , london , 1984 ) 183 .
m.  hallett , r.m .
dubinsky , j.  neurol .
, 114 ( 1993 ) 45 .
jenkins , p.g .
bain , j.g .
colebatch , p.d .
thompson , l.j .
findley , r.s.j .
frackowiak , c.d .
marsden , d.j .
brooks , ann .
neurol . , 34 ( 1993 ) 82 .
bucher , k.c .
seelos , r.  dodel , m.  reiser , w.h .
oertel , ann .
neurol , 41 ( 1998 ) 273 .
hua , f.a .
lenz , t.a .
zirh , p.m.  dougherty , j. neurosurg psychiatry , 64 ( 1998 ) 273 .
benabid , p. pollak , c. gervason , d. hoffmann , d.m .
gao , m. hommel , j.e .
perret , j. derougemont , lancet , 337 ( 1991 ) 403 .
schuurman , d.a .
bosch , p.m.m .
bossuyt , g.j .
bonsel , e.j.w .
van someren , r.m.s .
de bie , m.p .
merkus , j.d .
speelman , n. engl .
, 342 ( 2000)461 . d.m .
halliday , b.a .
conway , s.f .
farmer , u.  shahani , a.j.c .
russell , j.r .
rosenberg , lancet , 355 ( 2000 ) 1149 .
b. hellwig , s.  huler , m.  lauk , b.  guschlbauer , b.  kster , r.  kristeva - feige , j.  timmer , c.h .
lcking , clin .
neurophysiol . , 111 ( 2000 ) 806 .
klem , h.o .
jasper , h.h .
the ten - twenty electrode system of the international federation .
editors g. deuschl and a. eisen , in .
recommendations for the practice of clinical neurophysiology : guidelines of the international federation of clinical neurophysiology , electroencephalogr .
suppl . , 52 ( 1999 ) 3 .
b.  hjorth , electroencephalogr .
neurophysiol . , 39 ( 1975 ) 526 .
b.  hjorth , j. clin .
neurophysiol . ,
8 ( 1991 ) 391 .
guyton , text book of medical physiology , editors m.j .
wonsiewicz , ( prism books ( pvt ) ltd . , bangalore , india , 1991 ) , 659 .
t.  mima , m.  hallett , j. clin .
neurophysiol . , 16 ( 1999 ) 501 .
t.  mima , m.  hallett , clin . neurophysiol . , 110 ( 1999 ) , 1892 . t.  mima , j.  steger , a.e
.  schulman , c.  gerloff , m.  hallett , clin .
neurophysiol . , 111 ( 2000 ) 326 .
halliday , b.a .
conway , s.f .
farmer , j.r .
rosenberg , neurosci .
lett . , 241 ( 1998 ) 5 .
d.  kaplan and l.  glass , understanding nonlinear dynamics , editors j.e .
marsden , l.  sirovich , m.  golubitsky and w. jger ( springer - verlag , new york , 1995 ) .
z.  chen , p.ch .
ivanov , k.  hu , h.e .
stanley , phys .
e , 65 ( 2002 ) 041107 .
y.  chen , g.  rangarajan , j.  feng , m.  ding , phys .
a , 324 ( 2004 ) 26 . t.  schreiber , phys .
85 ( 2000 ) 461 .
a.  gozolchiani , s.  moshel , j.m .
hausdorff , e.  simon , j.  kurths , s.  havlin , arxiv.org e - print cond - mat/0410617 .


the phase structure of quantum chromodynamics(qcd ) in the presence of an external magnetic field has been explored extensively in recent years@xcite .
this is of great phenomenological relevance for non - central heavy ion collisions and dense neutron stars as well as cosmological evolutions in its early stage . in particular , the peculiar response of the spontaneously breaking of chiral symmetry to a strong magnetic field
is among the central issues and posseses a theoretical challenge .
the profound effect of the magnetic field on chiral symmetry breaking had been pointed out in quantum electrodynamics(qed ) very early@xcite .
it was found that magnetic fields can enhance the chiral symmetry breaking due to an effective dimension reduction in the lowest landau level(lll ) in the charged fermionic sector .
this phenomenon is called _ magnetic catalysis_. in qcd , this problem can be addressed reliably by the lattice monte - carlo simulation without sign problem@xcite . it has shown intriguingly and , however , unexpectedly that the chiral critical temperature decreases with an increasing magnetic field , which is in explicit conflict with magnetic catalysis and thus termed as _ inverse magnetic catalysis _ or _
magnetic inhibition_. many attempts already exist in the literatures trying to explain this contradiction@xcite .    along with the dimension reduction in the fermionic sector , which accounts for the magnetic catalysis
, the significance of magnetic fields manifests in another important aspect in a general way in systems with spontanously symmetry breaking .
it enhances the fluctuations through the spatial anisotropy of the spectrum of bosonic modes in the system , although the bosons are still in @xmath0 dimension and do not directly suffer from the mermin - wagner - coleman theorem which forbids the spontaneously breaking of continuous symmetry in @xmath1 and @xmath2 dimensions@xcite .
this claim follows by the observation that the ginzburg critical window of the chiral phase transition gets widened in the presence of a magnetic field@xcite .
the role played by magnetic fields is thus twofold which competes with each other .
a simple and straightforward model to investigate this competition is the bose - einstein condensation(bec ) of neutral bosons composed by two equally and oppositely charged fermions@xcite , which is a physical analog of chiral condensate in a magnetic field , yet analytically tractable .
the corresponding non - relativistic case had been studied in @xcite , where we found that the critical temperature for the bec was dramatically affected by the magnetic field . in weak coupling domain ( where the coupling fails to support a two fermion bound state in the absence of a magnetic field ) ,
dimension reduction dominates and we found the usual magnetic catalysis effect . in strong coupling domain ( where a two fermion bound state exists in the absence of a magnetic field ) , however , the fluctuations dominate and the situation gets reversed , we found the inverse magnetic catalysis , i.e. , the critical temperature of bec decreases as an increasing magnetic field .    in the present paper , we shall extend the above analysis to the relativistic fermions .
technically , this amounts to replace the non - relativistic fermionic propagator by the dirac one in a magnetic field@xcite .
the corresponding one loop diagram underlying the theory will be quadratically divergent . the leading divergence can be removed by the coupling renormalization , similar to the non - relativistic case , where the renormalized coupling is in terms of the scattering length , but the logarithmic subleading divergence remains and a uv cutoff has to be introduced by hand .
consequently , the results will be explicitly cutoff dependent , like all relativistic field theories with 4-fermion interactions .
nevertheless , the cutoff does not change the results qualitatively .
we found that the low lying spectrum of the bound pairs is given by @xmath3 where @xmath4(@xmath5 ) is the momentum component parallel ( perpendicular ) to the magnetic field , @xmath6 is an anisotropicity factor and @xmath7 is the rest energy of a bound pair .
this spectrum implies a nonrelativistic like condensation temperature @xmath8^{2/3}\frac{\pi}{\bar\mu}\label{transitiontemperature}.\ ] ] at sufficiently low density . unlike the nonrelativistic case where only the anisotropicity factor @xmath9 is magnetic field dependent
, the `` mass '' @xmath10 here depends on the magnetic field as well . in the weak coupling domain ,
the magnetic field dependence of both @xmath9 and @xmath10 support magnetic catalysis and @xmath11 increases with an increasing magnetic field as in the nonrelativistic case .
the situation in strong coupling domain , however , is very different from that in the nonrelativistic case , in which the inverse magnetic catalysis prevails regardless of the strength of the magnetic field . in the present case
, the inverse magnetic catalysis only appears when magnetic field is low and the magnetic catalysis effect takes place again when magnetic field is sufficiently high because of opposite roles played by @xmath9 and @xmath10 there .
consequently , @xmath11 decreases first and then increases with the magnetic field .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows : in section ii we lay out the general formulation and present the mean field approximation . the fluctuations beyond the mean field theory , which is necessary for bec ,
is calculated under the gaussain approximation in section iii .
the numerical solutions to the gap equation and the condensation temperature are presented in section iv .
section v is devoted to the conclusions and outlooks .
some calculation details and useful formulas are presented in the appendices a , b , c and d. throughout the paper , we will work in euclidean space with the four vector represented by @xmath12 with @xmath13 the matsubara frequency for bosons @xmath14 or for fermions @xmath15 with @xmath16 the temperature .
we consider a system consisting of relativistic fermions of mass @xmath17 and chemical potential @xmath18 with opposite electric charge interacting through a short ranged instantaneous attractive interaction . in a quark matter
, the attractive interaction stems from the nonperturbative qcd effects and the long range coulomb interaction is perturbative and can be ignored in the leading order .
the lagrangian density reads @xmath19 where @xmath20 and @xmath21 with @xmath22 the covariant derivative and @xmath23 the charge magnitude .
we also defined the charge conjugate operator @xmath24 and @xmath25 . in the following ,
we shall consider the situation of a constant magnetic field and work in landau gauge , in which the vector potential @xmath26(the field @xmath27 being along the @xmath28 direction ) .
introducing the usual hubbard - stratonovich field @xmath29 coupled to @xmath30 , we obtain the partition function @xmath31.\ ] ] where @xmath32 is the normalization constant and the nambu - gorkov(ng ) spinors are defined as @xmath33 the effective action is given by @xmath34,\ ] ] with    @xmath35    the thermodynamic potential reads @xmath36 and the number density of fermions is given by @xmath37 with @xmath38 the pressure and @xmath39 the spatial volume of the system . integrating out the ng degrees of freedom , the partition function becomes @xmath40\right),\ ] ] with @xmath41-\int d^4 x\frac{|\delta(x)|^2}{g}.\label{effectiveaction}\ ] ] where the trace runs over space , imaginary time , dirac and ng indices .
the mean field approximation ignores the fluctuations in @xmath29 field , which amounts to set @xmath42 . in this approximation
, we obtain @xmath43 ^ 2\right ) \left((i\omega_n)^2-\left[e_l^-(\delta_0)\right]^2\right)\right],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath44 and @xmath45 labels the landau levels ( ll ) .
notice that , the factor @xmath46 reflects the non - degeneracy in the lowest landau level ( lll ) .
we defined @xmath47^{1/2}.\ ] ] which are the energy spectrum of the fermionic exitations in the system .
the thermodynamic potential under mean - field approximation is @xmath48 . \label{pressure0}\ ] ]    from the saddle point condition @xmath49}{\delta\delta_0}=0,\ ] ] one obtains the gap equation @xmath50.\label{gapequation}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath51 at the transition temperatute @xmath52 .
the number density under mean field approximation follows from eq.([fermionnumberdensity ] ) and reads @xmath53}{\partial\mu}\right)_t .
\label{fermionnumberdensity0}\ ] ]    in bcs limit , the critical temperature coincides with the threshold pairing temperature which , at a given chemical potential , is determined by ( [ gapequation ] ) at @xmath51 first and the chemical potential is in turn solved by the density equation ( [ fermionnumberdensity ] ) . in bec limit , however , the roles of ( [ gapequation ] ) and ( [ fermionnumberdensity ] ) reversed because the critical tempearture becomes separate from the pairing .
( [ gapequation ] ) determines the chemical potential@xcite .
the bec critical temperature is determined by eq.([fermionnumberdensity ] ) equals ( [ fermionnumberdensity0 ] ) plus the contribution from the bosonic excitation spectrum , whose low momentum behavior will be given in the next section .
there we shall also see that the quantity @xmath54 with @xmath18 the solution of the gap equation measures the binding energy of a relativistic pair and locates the bosonic pole below the two - fermion cut at zero total momentum .
to make the formulation analytically tractable , we assume that @xmath55 and @xmath56 the gap equation ( [ gapequation ] ) can be approximated by @xmath57.\label{zerotemgapeq}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have set @xmath51 , which amounts to approach the critical point from normal to superconducting phase . obviously , this equation is quadratically divergent and needs to be regularized . to maintain the relativistic invariance , we shall use the pauli - villars regularization scheme . introducing the pv regulators , we obtain @xmath58.\label{pvgapeq}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath59 and @xmath60 . throughout the paper
, we shall assume that the regulator mass @xmath61 but finite .
carrying out the integral over the momentum under the constrains imposed by the regularization conditions , we obtain @xmath62.\label{gapeqinappendix}\end{aligned}\ ] ] dropping all terms with negative powers of @xmath63 since @xmath64 by definition , we end up with    @xmath65\right.\\ \nonumber&+\left.2\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\left[\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2leb+m^2-\mu^2}}\tan^{-1}\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2leb+m^2-\mu^2}}-\frac{\mu^2}{2leb+m^2-\mu^2}\right]\right\}\\ & + \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\left[m^2\sum_{s>0}c_s\lambda_s^2\ln\lambda_s^2 - 2\mu^2\sum_{s>0}c_s\ln\lambda_s^2+m^2\left(1+\ln\frac{2eb}{m^2}\right)-2\mu^2\ln\frac{2eb}{m^2}-eb\ln\frac{4\pi eb}{m^2}\right].\label{regularizedgapeq}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath66 and @xmath67 the gamma function , and @xmath68 .
the detailed steps leading from ( [ gapeqinappendix ] ) to ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) will be shown in appendix a. the quadratic term in the regulator masses in the last line can be absorbed into the coupling constant as usual and the logarithmic term in the regulator ones remains , leaving the gap equation explicitly depends on an uv cutoff .
in the appendix b , we have proved that solutions to this gap equation is a decreasing function of an increasing magnetic field .
the gap equation at zero magnetic field can be obtained straightforwardly from ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) and reads @xmath69 where the critical coupling @xmath70 had absorbed the quadratically divergent term .
the strong and weak coupling domain is characterized by a critical coupling , which is the threshold coupling for a bound state to show up in the absence of a magnetic field .
it follows then the critical coupling constant is defined as the one for @xmath71 .
moreover , we shall denote @xmath72 with @xmath73 an uv cutoff .
we thus have @xmath74 this definition establishs an explicit dependence of the dimensionless critical coupling constant @xmath75 on the uv cutoff .
in this section , we shall include all nonzero momentum component of the hubbard - stratonovich field to the quadratic order ( gaussian fluctuations ) in the partition function .
approching the condensate from the normal phase , we shall reproduce the gap quation ( [ zerotemgapeq ] ) by the thouless critirion and obtain the contribition from the bosonic excitations to the number density ( [ fermionnumberdensity ] ) , which is necessary to determine the critical temperature in bec limit . for the simplicity of notation , we shall not explicitly write out the pauli - villars regulators in the following calculations .
but they will be restored whenever the integral is divergent .
expanding the bosonic field @xmath29 around the trivial saddle point @xmath51 in the effective action ( [ effectiveaction ] ) , we obtain that @xmath76&\simeq { \cal s}_{\rm eff}[0]-\frac{1}{g}\int d^4 x|\delta(x)|^2\\ & + { \rm tr}\left[g_0 ^ -(x , y)\gamma^5\delta^*(y ) g_0^+(y , x)\gamma^5 \delta(x)\right],\label{guanssianaction}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath77^{-1}$ ] the diagonal elements in the ng propagator ( [ ngpropagator ] ) , which are nothing but the inverse dirac operators in a magnetic field in coordinate space . the dirac propagator had been firstly obtained by schwinger using the proper time method . here
we shall employ the form with explicit landau levels dependence , given in@xcite @xmath78^{-1}\delta(x - y)\\ = & e^{i\phi(x , y)}t\sum_n\int\frac{d^3{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{-ik\cdot z}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}g_l^\pm(\omega_n,{\bf k}),\label{diracpropagator}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with    @xmath79\left[2\pi_+l_l\left(\frac{2{\bf k}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)-2\pi_-l_{l-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf k}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)\right]\right.\\ & + \left.4({\bf k}\cdot\gamma)_\perp l_{l-1}^1\left(\frac{2{\bf k}_\perp^2}{eb}\right ) \right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath80 and we also defined the projectors @xmath81 , @xmath82 is the generalized laguerre polynomials(@xmath83 and @xmath84 by definition ) .
the gauge dependent phase factor is given by @xmath85 which cancels out in the combination of ( [ guanssianaction ] ) .
consequently , the kernel mediating @xmath86 and @xmath29 there is explictly translational invariant , i.e. , depends only on @xmath87 , as expected .    in momentum space ,
( [ guanssianaction ] ) becomes @xmath88={\cal s}_{\rm eff}[0]-t\sum_n\int \frac{{d^3\bf p}}{(2\pi)^3}\gamma^{-1}(\omega_n,{\bf p})|\delta(\omega_n,{\bf p})|^2,\label{gaussianeffectiveaction}\ ] ] where the dependence of the coefficient @xmath89 on @xmath90 and @xmath27 is implicit .
the instability towards the superconducting phase is then signaled by the condition @xmath91 which is just the thouless criterion for the onset of a long range order .
the number density equation is determined by @xmath92 where @xmath93 $ ] with @xmath94 the fermi - dirac distribution function , is the fermionic contribution defined in ( [ fermionnumberdensity ] ) .
( [ thoulesseq ] ) and ( [ gaussiannumbereq ] ) are two basic equations to solve for bcs / bec crossover@xcite . following the convention in@xcite
, one can write the number density ( [ gaussiannumbereq ] ) in terms of a phase shift defined by @xmath95 $ ] .
we have @xmath96 with @xmath97 $ ] the bose - einstein distrubution function .    to calculate @xmath89
, we make use of the eq.([diracpropagator ] ) and the fourier transformation of the fluctuation field @xmath98 and obtain    @xmath99\left[l_{l^\prime}\left(\frac{2{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)l_l\left(\frac{2{\bf q}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)+l_{l^\prime-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)l_{l-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf q}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)\right]\right.\\ & \left.-8\left({\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}\right)_\perp l^1_{l^\prime-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)l^1_{l-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf q}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)\right\}-\frac{1}{g}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath100
. working out the sum over matsubara frequecies , one can verify that the condition ( [ thoulesseq ] ) will yield the same gap equation as ( [ zerotemgapeq ] ) .
let s proceed by employing the proper - time representation of the propagators introduced by schwinger @xmath101 where the feynmann parametrization scheme had been used .
we obtain    @xmath102+(1-x)\left[(\omega'+\omega+2\mu)^2-q_3 ^ 2 - 2leb - m^2 \right ] ) } \\
\nonumber&\times\left\ { \left[\omega^{\prime}(\omega^{\prime}+\omega+2\mu)-k_3q_3-m^2\right]\left[l_{l^\prime}\left(\frac{2{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)l_l\left(\frac{2{\bf q}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)+l_{l^\prime-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)l_{l-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf q}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)\right]\right.\\ & \left.-8\left({\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}\right)_\perp l^1_{l^\prime-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)l^1_{l-1}\left(\frac{2{\bf q}_\perp^2}{eb}\right)\right\}-\frac{1}{g}.\label{inversegamma}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where we analytically continuated the matsubara frequency to the continuous one as @xmath103 and shift the frequency from @xmath104 to @xmath105 . the same approximation as in the preceding section
, @xmath106 has been made in ( [ inversegamma ] ) that turns the matsubara sum over @xmath107 to the integral over @xmath108    using the generating function of laguerre polynomials @xmath109 one can carry out the sum over landau levels and has    @xmath110}\\ & \times \left\ { \left[k\cdot q - m^2\right]\frac{1+tt'}{(1-t)(1-t')}-8\left({\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}\right)_\perp\frac{tt'}{(1-t)^2(1-t')^2 } \right\}-\frac{1}{g}.\label{covariantgamma}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath111 and @xmath112 .
we defined @xmath113 , @xmath114 and @xmath115 , by which eq.([covariantgamma ] ) can be written in a covariant form .
one may observe that all momentum integrals become gaussian ones , which is the advantage of using the proper - time representations .
the integral over @xmath116 can be carried out by shifting the variable to @xmath117 and wick rotating @xmath118 with @xmath119 from @xmath120 to @xmath121 , and we obtain    @xmath122}\\ & \times \left\ { \left[\frac{1}{\lambda}+x(1-x)p^2+m^2\right]\frac{1+tt'}{(1-t)(1-t')}+8\left({\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}\right)_\perp\frac{tt'}{(1-t)^2(1-t')^2 } \right\}-\frac{1}{g}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the other integral over momentum @xmath123 can be performed by noticing that @xmath124 and @xmath125 we end up with    @xmath126 -\frac{\tanh(\lambda xeb)\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}{\tanh(\lambda xeb)+\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}\frac{{\bf p}_\perp^2}{eb}}\left\ { \left[\frac{1}{\lambda}+x(1-x)p^2+m^2\right]\coth(\lambda eb)\right.\\ & + \left.\frac{1}{\sinh^2(\lambda eb ) } \left[eb -\frac{\tanh(\lambda xeb)\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}{\tanh(\lambda xeb)+\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}{\bf p}_\perp^2\right ] \right\}-\frac{1}{g}.\label{finalgamma}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the singularity structure of @xmath127 in the entire complext @xmath128-plane reflects the two - particle spectrum .
there will be an isolated real pole representing the two - body bound pair and a branch cut along the real axis representing the continuum of two - particle excitations .
for sufficiently strong coupling and low temperature , the contribution to the number density is dominated by the bound pair pole , which is determined by @xmath129 with @xmath130 the solution to the mean field equation ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) .
we henceforth consider the expansion of ( [ finalgamma ] ) around this pole and obtain @xmath131 with @xmath132}\\ & \times\left\{\left[\frac{2}{\lambda}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}^2+m^2\right]\coth(\lambda eb)+\frac{eb}{\sinh^2(\lambda eb ) } \right\ } , \label{coeffa}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath133}\\ \nonumber&\times\frac{\tanh(\lambda xeb)\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}{\tanh(\lambda xeb)+\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}\\ & \times \left\{\left[\frac{1}{\lambda}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}^2+m^2\right]\coth(\lambda eb)+\frac{2eb}{\sinh^2(\lambda eb)}\right\}. \label{coeffb}\end{aligned}\ ] ] notice that , the kinetic term in ( [ gammaundergaussian ] ) becomes anisotropic with respect to the directions along and perpendicular to the magnetic field due to the rotational symmetry breaking by the magnetic field .
one can readily show that @xmath134 at zero magnetic field as expected .
moreover , the coefficients satisfy the inequality @xmath135 regardless of solutions to the gap equation(see appendix d for details ) .
the bosonic spectrum at low momentum is determined by the pole of @xmath127 and reads @xmath136 with the anisotropicity factor @xmath137 in contrast to the non - relativistic case , in which the mass of the pair is @xmath138 , the mass is replaced by the @xmath139 , which is magnetic field dependent .
once @xmath140 becomes smaller than @xmath17 , stable bosonic pairs appear and they dominate the total number density at sufficienly low temperature .
the condensation temperature is determined by setting the chemical potential at the solution of the mean field equation ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) , i.e. @xmath141 , and the phase factor follows @xmath142 where @xmath143 is the heaviside step function . substituting ( [ phasefactor ] ) into ( [ numberdensity ] )
, we obtain @xmath144^{-1 } , \label{beccondition}\ ] ] where @xmath145 the fermionic contribution had been ignored under the condition @xmath146 of our approximation . solving ( [ beccondition ] ) for @xmath11 , we end up with the formula ( [ transitiontemperature ] ) reported in section i.
in this section , we shall explore the bec critical temperature in view of ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) and ( [ transitiontemperature ] ) .
the results display a nontrivial dependence on the strength of the coupling constant and magnetic field .
the strong coupling and weak coupling domains correspond to @xmath147 and @xmath148 respectively . for the discussion below , it is convenient to introduce a dimensionless critical temperature @xmath149 where @xmath150 is given by ( [ transitiontemperature ] ) with @xmath151 and @xmath152 . in the strong coupling domain , @xmath153 is the solution of the gap equation at zero magnetic field and @xmath150 is the critical temperature of a bound pair at zero magnetic field . in the weak coupling domain
, we set @xmath154 and @xmath150 the critical temperature of a nonrelativistic boson with mass @xmath138 at zero magnetic field . the ( inverse)magnetic catalysis implies increasing(decreasing ) @xmath155 with magnetic field .
let us consider first the weak magnetic field limit @xmath156 , where analytic method can be applied . in the strong coupling domain , we expand the rhs of the gap equation to the quadratic order in @xmath157 with the aid of stirling formula for the gamma and di - gamma functions in ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) and the euler - maclaurin formula for the infinite series there and obtain @xmath158 with the solution @xmath159,\ ] ] where @xmath160 and @xmath161 is the derivative of rhs of ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) with respect to @xmath18 at @xmath162 and @xmath163 , given by @xmath164 the anisotropicity in this approximation reads @xmath165 with    @xmath166}\left\{\frac{1}{\lambda}(2+x-6x^2 + 3x^3)+x(1-x)^2\left[4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2+m^2\right]\right \}\\ & = \frac{3m^2 - 2\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}{32\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}-\frac{9m^4 - 28m^2\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2 + 16\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 4}{96\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 3\sqrt{m^2-\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}}\tan^{-1}\frac{\bar{\mu}_0}{\sqrt{m^2-\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}},\end{aligned}\ ] ]    and @xmath167}\\ \nonumber&\times\left[\frac{3}{\lambda}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2+m_s^2\right ] \\
= & \frac{1}{2}\ln\lambda^2-\frac{m^2 - 2\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}{2\bar{\mu}_0\sqrt{m^2-\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}}\tan^{-1}\frac{\bar{\mu}_0}{\sqrt{m^2-\bar{\mu}_0 ^ 2}}+\frac{2}{3}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] it follows that the dimensionless critical temperature @xmath168 with the coefficient @xmath169 the numerical values of the coefficient @xmath170 are tabulated in table i for different couplings and cutoffs in the strong coupling domain and indicate an inverse magnetic catalysis at a weak magnetic field .     the scaled bound state mass versus the dimensionless magnetic field in strong coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]     the scaled bound state mass versus the dimensionless magnetic field in weak coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]    coming to the weak coupling domain , the bound magnetic field is the only catalyst of the bound state and a weak magnetic field triggers a weak bound state , nonrelativistic formulas in @xcite can be carried over in the weak field limit . @xmath173 and @xmath174 with the scattering length @xmath175 extracted from @xmath176 the lll approximation works here and the usual magnetic catalysis emerges ( increasing with @xmath27 ) .
the details of the non - relativistic approximation of the gap equation can be found in appendix d.    .[tab : table]numerical values of @xmath170 for different couplings and cutoffs in the strong coupling domain . [ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ]      the anisotropicity @xmath9 versus the dimensionless magnetic field in strong coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to solutions to the gap equation with an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]     the anisotropicity @xmath9 versus the dimensionless magnetic field in weak coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to solutions to the gap equation with an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]     the ratio @xmath177 versus the dimensionless magnetic field in strong coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to solutions to the gap equation with an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]     the ratio @xmath177 versus the dimensionless magnetic field in weak coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to solutions to the gap equation with an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]     the condensation temperature versus the dimensionless magnetic field in strong coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to solutions to the gap equation with an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]     the condensation temperature versus the dimensionless magnetic field in weak coupling domain .
the solid and dashed line corresponds to solutions to the gap equation with an uv cutoff @xmath171 and @xmath172 , respectively.,height=264 ]    beyond the weak field limit , we solve the gap equation ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) numerically at two different coupling domains that are mildly above and blow the critical coupling with two different sets of uv cutoff and the results are presented in fig.1 and fig.2 . in both cases , the chemical potential at the critical temperature decreases with an increasing magnetic field indicating an increasing binding energy of the bound pairs , consistent with the magnetic catalysis . in strong coupling domain , however ,
bound pairs may appear at zero magnetic field in contrast to the case in weak coupling domain , in which the pairs can only support by magnetic catalysis .
therefore , the curve in fig.1 starts from @xmath178 at @xmath162 while the curve in fig.2 from @xmath179 at @xmath162 . in both cases
, the results display an explicit dependence on the uv cutoff , which is intrinsic in the ( 3 + 1 ) dimensional model with contact interaction .
but the dependence does not change the results qualitatively .
the reason for the cross between the solid and dashed curves at lower magnetic field can be explained as follows .
one can show that @xmath180^{-1}.\label{muoflambda}\ ] ] with @xmath181 and @xmath182 the rhs of the gap equation ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) .
it had been proved in the appendix that @xmath183 and ( [ muoflambda ] ) thus changes sign at a critical value @xmath184 .
one therefore expects a crossing of the two sets of solutions corresponding to different uv cutoffs at strong coupling domain with @xmath185 as shown in fig.1 .
such crossing should be absent in weak coupling since @xmath186 .
the magnetic field dependence of the dimensionless critical temperature ( [ dimltc ] ) is determined by that of the anosotropicity factor @xmath9 and the ratio @xmath187 , which are plotted in fig.3 to fig.8 .
as we can see , the anisotropicity decreases ( increases ) with magnectic field in strong ( weak ) coupling domains while the ratio @xmath188 increases with magnetic field in both domains .
consequently , the competetion between the two opposite field dependence of @xmath189 and @xmath188 in the strong coupling domain yields an inverse magnetic catalysis at lower magnetic field but magnetic catalysis at higher magnetic field . in the weak coupling domain , however , both factors increases with the magetic field and the usual magnetic catalysis emerges .
in this paper , we have investigated the bec of bound pairs composed by two equally and oppositely charged relativistic fermions in the presence of a magnetic field .
this is inspired by the inverse magnetic catalysis effect found in lattice qcd and is a generalization of our non - relativistic work @xcite .
the purpose is to explore the interplay between the pairing dynamics and the fluctuations of bound pairs in a magnetic field , the latter of which underlies the mermin - wigner - coleman theorem on the absence of a long range order in lower dimensions .
a nambu - jona - lasinio(njl)-like pairing interaction is considered and the fluctuation is examined within the gaussian approximation , which is valid at a sufficiently low density . unlike the case without a magnetic field where a bound state emerges for the coupling strength above a certain threshold , the bound states occurs also in the weak coupling domain because of the @xmath190 nature of the fermionic spectrum within lll .
the binding energy of a bound pair is found to increase with the magnetic field as a consequence of the magnetic catalysis .
the dependence of the bec critical temperature on the magnetic field depends on the coupling strength . in weak coupling domain
, we found the usual magnetic catalysis . in strong coupling domain , unlike the nonrelativitic case , the inverse magnetic catalysis appears only in small magnetic field region and magnetic catalysis takes place again when magnetic field becomes sufficiently large .
the reason for this difference is the dependence of the mass of bound pairs on the magnetic field in relativistic case .
the condensation temperature is thus determined by two factors , the anisotropy and the ratio between the mass of bound pairs at zero magnetic field and the one with magnetic field dependence , both depends on the magnetic field . in strong coupling domain ,
the two factors have opposite field dependence and yield the inverse magnetic catalysis in small magnetic filed region but magnetic catalysis at large field . in weak coupling domain ,
both factors increase with the magnetic field and magnetic catalysis prevails .
this variation indicates that the enhanced fluctuations by the anisotropy in the kinetic terms of the bound pairs is less dominant as compared with the nonrelativistic case .
although the system we have studied shares the same physics as the chiral condensate in qcd regarding general prperties of a long range order and its fluctuations and is analytically tractable .
the qcd dynamics , however , are expected to be far more complicated and other mechanisms may also contribute the simulated magnetic field dependence of the condensation temperature .
for example , the quark loop that is influenced by the magnetic field can impact on the running of qcd coupling . in recently works based on functional renormalization group studies@xcite , inverse magnetic catalysis at a low magnetic field and
a delayed magnetic catalysis at a high field had been found . the magnetic field at the turning point ( minimum @xmath52 ) between decreasing and increasing @xmath52
is expected to be of order of several @xmath191 .
ads / qcd model suggests the same behavior and similar value of magnetic field at the turning point@xcite .
it is shown by one lattice calculation@xcite , however , that even at an extremely strong field @xmath192 , inverse magnetic catalysis still prevails .
the reconciliation is still lacking at the present stage .
in addition to the theoretical values of our present study , the physics involved may also be applicable in cold dense quark matter , such as the color - flavor - locking superconducting phase and the planar phase in single flavor superconductivity@xcite .
they are of interests in dense neutron stars , where magnetic field up to @xmath193 to @xmath194 appears on the surface and even higher magnetic field exists in the interior .
this research is partly supported by the ministry of science and technology of china ( mstc ) under the `` 973 '' project no .
2015cb856904(4 ) .
b. f. is supported by nsfc under grant no .
11305067 , no . 11535005 and
the fundamental research funds for the central universities ,  hust : no .
hou and h - c ren are partly supported by nsfc under grant nos .
11375070 , 11135011 and 11221504 .
p - p wu is supported by the exploratory fund of henan polytechnic university , no .
13156041 .      in this appendix , the reduction of the gap equation ( [ gapeqinappendix ] ) to the form ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) shall be presented .
the first term inside the brackets of ( [ gapeqinappendix ] ) can be evaluated as @xmath195.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using the infinite product representation of gamma function @xmath196,\ ] ] one has @xmath197 therefore the gap equation ( [ gapeqinappendix ] ) becomes @xmath198\label{intermediate}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath199 it can be further simplified for @xmath200 and @xmath201 by eliminating the terms that vanishes in the limit @xmath202 with @xmath203 since @xmath204 . ] . for this purpose ,
we rewrite ( [ intermediate ] ) as @xmath205\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we have @xmath206 and the other infinite series converges for each @xmath207 , which vanishes in the limit @xmath208 for @xmath203 and can be ignored . applying the stirling formulas @xmath209 and @xmath210 with @xmath211 the bernoulli numbers , @xmath212 .
we thus have , for @xmath203 @xmath213 and @xmath214 we end up with the form of ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) of the gap equation .      in this appendix
, we shall provide analytical proofs of the monotinic dependence of the bound state mass and the anisotropy factors on the magnetic field . because of the complication introduced by pauli - villars regulators , we limit our scope within the approximaton that maintains only the logarithmic terms in the regulator masses .    denoting the rhs of the gap equation ( [ gapeqinappendix ] ) by @xmath215 , we have _ lemma _ : ( 1 ) for a given @xmath27 , @xmath216 is a monotonically increasing function of @xmath18 for @xmath217 ; ( 2 ) for a given @xmath18 within @xmath218 , @xmath216 is a monotonically increasing function of @xmath27 .    proof : ( 1 ) the partial derivative of @xmath216 with respect to @xmath18 reads : @xmath219 with @xmath220 defined in ( [ thetas ] ) and @xmath221 and @xmath222 .
let us divide the above derivative into two terms , @xmath223 and @xmath224 , with @xmath224 carrying the logarithmic uv divergence and @xmath223 not .
we have @xmath225\\ \simeq&\frac{eb\mu}{\pi^2}\left[\sum_{l=0}^\infty \alpha_l\left(\frac{1}{2leb+m^2-\mu^2}-\frac{1}{2leb+m^2}\right)\right]\ge 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath226.\ ] ] where
we have assumed that the terms with negative power of the regulator masses dropped from @xmath223 are too small to offset the direction of the inequality .
it follows from the binet formula @xmath227 and its derivative @xmath228 that @xmath229 .
consequently @xmath230    \(2 ) taking the derivative of ( [ gapeqinappendix ] ) with respect to @xmath27 , we find that @xmath231 where @xmath232\\ \nonumber\ge&\frac{e\mu}{4\pi^2}\sum_{l=0}^\infty\alpha_l\left[\frac{leb+m^2-\mu^2}{(2leb+m^2-\mu^2)^{\frac{3}{2 } } } \sin2\theta_0\right.\\ \nonumber&-\left.\frac{leb\mu}{(2leb+m^2)(2leb+m^2-\mu^2)}\right]\\ = & \frac{e\mu^2}{2\pi^2}\sum_{l=0}^\infty\alpha_l\frac{m^2-\mu^2}{(2leb+m^2)}\ge 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath233\nonumber\\   = & \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial b}\left\{eb\left[\ln\gamma\left(\frac{m^2}{2eb}\right)-\frac{m^2}{2eb}\left(\ln \frac{m^2}{2eb}-1\right)\right.\right.\nonumber\\ & -\left.\left.\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{4\pi eb}{m^2}\right]\right\}\ge 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the inequality following from ( [ b1 ] ) and ( [ b2 ] ) .
the lemma is proved .
for the solution of the gap equation , @xmath234 and we arrive at _ theorem _ : the bound state mass is a decreasing function of the external magnetic field .
@xmath239 \frac{ebs's\cosh((s'+s)eb)}{s'+s}+\frac{(eb)^2s's}{(s'+s)\sinh((s'+s)eb ) } -\left[\frac{1}{s'+s}+\frac{4s's\bar{\mu}^2}{s'+s}+m^2\right]\\ \nonumber & \times\frac{\tanh ( s'eb)\tanh ( s eb)}{\tanh ( s'eb)+\tanh ( s eb ) } -\frac{2eb\tanh ( s'eb)\tanh ( s eb)}{\sinh((s'+s)eb)(\tanh ( s'eb)+\tanh ( s eb))}\nonumber\\ \nonumber = & \left[\frac{1}{s'+s}+\frac{4s's\bar{\mu}^2}{s'+s}+m^2\right ] \left[\frac{ebs's}{s'+s}\cosh((s'+s)eb)-\frac{\tanh ( s'eb)\tanh ( s eb)}{\tanh ( s'eb)+\tanh ( s eb)}\right ] + \frac{ebs's}{(s'+s)^2}\cosh((s'+s)eb)\\ \nonumber & + \frac{(eb)^2s's}{(s'+s)\sinh((s'+s)eb ) } -\frac{2eb\tanh ( s'eb)\tanh ( s eb)}{\sinh((s'+s)eb)(\tanh ( s'eb)+\tanh ( s eb))}\nonumber\\ \geq & \frac{eb s's}{s'+s}\left[\frac{1}{s'+s}+\frac{4s's\bar{\mu}^2}{s'+s}+m^2\right ] \left[\cosh((s'+s)eb)-1\right ] + \frac{ebs's}{(s'+s)^2}\left[\cosh((s'+s)eb)-\frac{(s'+s)eb}{\sinh((s'+s)eb)}\right]\nonumber \\ \geq & \frac{ebs's}{(s'+s)^2\sinh((s'+s)eb)}\left[\sinh ( 2(s'+s)eb)-2(s'+s)eb\right ] \geq 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    a crucial inequality employed above is that @xmath240 for positive @xmath241 and @xmath242 . to prove it
, we notice that the function @xmath243 is monotonically increasing for @xmath244 and @xmath245 . setting @xmath246
, it follows from the inequality @xmath247 that @xmath248 repeating the same argument with @xmath249 , we end up with @xmath250 and the inequality is proved .      in this section , we shall take the nonrelativistic ( nr ) approximation of the gap equation ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) .
the conditions for the nr approximation are @xmath251 , @xmath252 with the nr binding energy @xmath253 and cyclotron frequency @xmath254 .
let us break the infinite series on rhs of ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) into two pieces , @xmath255,\ ] ] and @xmath256.\ ] ] with @xmath220 defined in ( [ thetas ] ) and @xmath257 .
consequently @xmath258,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the summation in @xmath259 can be approximated by an integral , i.e. @xmath260 using the formula @xmath261 with @xmath262 a contour on @xmath263-plane going around the positive real axis counterclockwisely , we find @xmath264 it follows from the hermite formula and stirling formula for @xmath265 that @xmath266 and @xmath267 consequently @xmath268 .
\label{series}\end{aligned}\ ] ] applying the stirling formula to the gamma function on rhs of ( [ regularizedgapeq ] ) and combining with ( [ series ] ) , we end up with @xmath269.\ ] ] which , upon identifying @xmath270 with @xmath271 , is the nonrelativistic gap equation obtained in @xcite .
@xmath274}\left\{\left[\frac{2}{\lambda}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}^2+m^2\right]\coth(\lambda eb)+\frac{eb}{\sinh^2(\lambda eb ) } \right\}\\ = & \frac{{\bar{\mu}}}{\pi^2eb}\int_0 ^ 1 dx\int_0^\infty d\xi \xi^{s+\frac{1}{2 } } x(1-x)e^{-\frac{m}{\omega_b}\xi(2x-1)^2 + 8\frac{b}{\omega_b}x(1-x)}\left\{\left[\frac{2eb}{\xi}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}^2+m^2\right]\coth(\xi)+\frac{eb}{\sinh^2(\xi ) } \right\},\end{aligned}\ ] ]      @xmath275}\frac{\tanh(\lambda xeb)\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}{\tanh(\lambda xeb)+\tanh(\lambda(1-x)eb)}\\ \nonumber & \times\left\{\left[\frac{1}{\lambda}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}^2+m^2\right]\coth(\lambda eb)+\frac{2eb}{\sinh^2(\lambda eb)}\right\}\\ \nonumber = & \frac{{\bar{\mu}}}{\pi^2}\int_0 ^ 1 dx\int_0^\infty d\xi \xi^{s-\frac{1}{2 } } e^{-\frac{m}{\omega_b}\xi(2x-1)^2 + 8\frac{b}{\omega_b}x(1-x ) } \frac{\tanh(\xi x)\tanh(\xi(1-x))}{\tanh(\xi x)+\tanh(\xi(1-x))}\\ & \times\left\{\left[\frac{eb}{\xi}+4x(1-x)\bar{\mu}^2+m^2\right]\coth(\xi)+\frac{2eb}{\sinh^2(\xi)}\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    and define @xmath272 and @xmath273 as their analytic continuations at @xmath276 , i.e. @xmath277 and @xmath278 .
both integrals are convergent for @xmath279 and the main contribution to the integral comes from @xmath280 . in the nonrelativistic limit , @xmath252 and @xmath251 ,
the integrand is peaked at @xmath281 and only the 2nd and 3rd terms inside the brackets dominate .
it follows that @xmath282 upon writing @xmath283 and using the integral representation of the hurwitz zeta function , we find that @xmath284.\ ] ] under the same approximation , we have @xmath285 using the identity @xmath286,\ ] ] and integration by part , we find        d. e. kharzeev , k. landsteiner , a. schmitt and h - u yee , lect .
notes phys .
* 871 * , 1 ( 2013 ) and _ references therein _ ; v. miransky and i. shovkovy , phys .
rep * 576 * ( 2015 ) 1 .
k. klimenko , theor .
phys . * 89 * , 1161 ( 1991 ) ; z. phys .
c * 54 * , 323 ( 1992 ) . v. gusynin , v. miransky and i. shovkovy , phys .
lett . * 73 * , 3499 ( 1994 ) ; phys .
d * 52 * , 4718 ( 1995 ) ; phys .
b * 349 * , 477 ( 1995 ) ; nucl .
* b 462 * , 249 ( 1996 ) .
g. bali , f. bruchmann , g. endrdi , z. fodor , s.d .
katz , s. krieg , a. sch@xmath288fer and k.k .
szab@xmath289 , j. high energy phys .
02 , ( 2012 ) 044 ; g. bali , f. bruchmann , g. endrdi , z. fodor , s.d .
katz , s. krieg and a. sch@xmath288fer , phys .
d * 86 * , 071502 ( 2012 ) .
f.preis , a. rebhan and a. schmitt , j. high energy phys .
03 ( 2011 ) 033 .
k. fukushima and j. m. pawlowski , phys .
d * 86 * , 076013 ( 2012 ) .
k. fukushima and y. hidaka , phys .
lett . * 110 * , 031601 ( 2013 ) .
t. kojo and n. su , phys . lett .
* b 720 * , ( 2013 ) . f. bruckmann , g. endrodi , and t. g. kovacs , j. high energy phys .
1304 , 112 ( 2013 ) . j. chao , p. chu and m. huang , phys .
rev d * 88 * , 054009 ( 2013 ) ; l. yu , h. liu and m. huang , phys .
d * 90 * , 074009 ( 2014 ) ; l. yu , j. van doorsselaere and m. huang , phys .
d * 91 * , 074011 ( 2015 ) .
r.farias , k.gomes , g. krein and m. pinto , phys .
c * 90 * , 025023 ( 2014 ) .
b. feng , d.f .
hou and h.c .
ren , phys .
d * 92 * , 065011 ( 2015 ) .
e.j.ferrer , v.de la incera and x. wen , phys .
d * 91 * , 054006 ( 2015 ) .
n. mueller and j. m. pawlowski , phys .
d * 91 * , 116010 ( 2015 ) .
j. braun , w. a. mian and s. rechenberger , arxiv:1412.6025[hep - ph ] .
k. a. mamo , j. high energy phys .
05 , 121 ( 2015 ) .
a. flachi , k. fukushima and v. vitagliano , phys .
* 114 * , 181601 ( 2015 ) .
chen , k. fukushima , x.g .
huang and k. mameda , arxiv:1512.08974[hep - ph ] .
k. hattori , t. kojo and n. su , arxiv:1512.07361[hep - ph ] .
n. mermin and h. wagner , phys .
rev . lett . *
17 * , 1133 ( 1966);p .
hohenberg , phys . rev . * 158 * , 383 ( 1967 ) ; s.coleman , commun . math . phys . * 31 * , 259 ( 1973 ) . b. feng , d - f hou and h - c ren , _ in preparation_. j. schwinger , phys . rev . * 82 * , 664 ( 1951 ) ; a. chodos , i. everding and d. a. owen , phys . rev .
d * 42 * , 2881 ( 1990 ) . c. s de melo , m. randeria and j.r.engelbrecht , phys .
lett . * 71 * , 19 ( 1985 ) .
p. nozires and s schmitt - rink , j. low temp . phys . * 59 * , 195 ( 1985 ) .
y. nishida and h. abuki , phys .
d * 72 * , 096004 ( 2005 ) ; h. abuki , nucl . phys . * a 791 * , 117 ( 2007);h .
abuki , g. baym , t. hatsuda and y. yamamoto , phys .
d * 81 * , 125010 ( 2010 ) .
j. deng , a. schmitt and q. wang , phys .
d * 76 * , 034013 ( 2007 ) .
j. wang , v. de la incera , e.j .
efrain and q. wang , phys .
d * 84 * , 065014 ( 2011 ) ; e.j .
efrain , v. de la incera , j. keith and i. portillo , arxiv:1405.7422[hep - ph ] . g. sun , l. he and p. zhuang , phys .
d * 75 * , 096004 ( 2007);l .
he and p. zhuang , phys .
d * 76 * , 056003 ( 2007 ) .
g. endrdi , arxiv:1504.08280[hep - lat ] .
ferrer , v. de la incera , phys .
* 102 * , 050402 ( 2009 ) ; e.j .
ferrer , v. de la incera , nucl .
* b 824 * , 217 ( 2010);b .
feng , e. j. ferrer and v. de la incera , nucl .
* b 853* 213 ( 2011 ) ; phys .
* b 706 * , 232 ( 2011 ) ; phys .
d * 85 * , 103529 ( 2012 ) .
a. schmitt , q. wang and d. h. rischke , phys .
lett . * 91 * , 242301 ( 2003 ) ; b. feng , d. f. hou , h. c. ren and p. p.
wu , phys .
lett . * 105 * , 042001 ( 2010 ) .