in field theory , currents which are conserved classically may not be quantum mechanically  @xcite .
for example , in massless @xmath2 the conservation of the axial current is violated by the axial anomaly .
the adler - bardeen theorem states that with the proper regularization scheme , the coefficient of the anomaly , as computed at one loop order , is exact to all orders in perturbation theory .
moreover , the axial anomaly does not change if the fermions propagate in either a thermal bath or a fermi sea  @xcite .    in vacuum ,
one of the most striking manifestations of the axial anomaly is the decay of a neutral pion into two photons , as the amplitude is directly proportional to the coefficient of the axial anomaly in qed  @xcite .
a natural supposition is then that because the axial anomaly does not change with temperature , neither does the amplitude for @xmath3  @xcite .    in this paper
we show that the story is more involved .
we compute with a gauged nonlinear sigma model  @xcite which properly incorporates all anomalies by inclusion of the wess - zumino - witten ( wzw ) term  @xcite .
the effective lagrangian for @xmath3 is @xmath4 where @xmath5 is the pion decay constant , @xmath6 is the number of colors , _ etc . _    in sec .
[ sec : vac ] we start by computing the effects of pion loops on the amplitude of ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) , using the wzw action to one loop order in vacuum  @xcite . the form of the wzw action is constrained by topology  @xcite , so after the dust of calculation settles , in vacuum the result is trivial : the only effect of the pion loops is to change a bare pion decay constant into a renormalized @xmath7 .
we then extend the calculations to soft , cool pions at low temperature  @xcite . in this paper
we work exclusively with two flavors in the chiral limit .
the restriction to two flavors is done for ease of calculation , and is otherwise inessential . the chiral limit , @xmath8 , is assumed because then the pion decay amplitude is directly related to the axial anomaly ; for calculations at @xmath9 at nonzero temperature , see  @xcite .
we believe that our results are relevant for @xmath9 ( as in vacuum ) , but more detailed analysis is required to establish this .    at nonzero temperature , calculations in a background field formalism  @xcite show that to @xmath10 , the zero temperature pion decay constant is replaced by a temperature dependent form  @xcite , @xmath11 thus a second guess for the change of @xmath12 with temperature would be that the zero temperature @xmath7 is replaced by @xmath13 . since @xmath13 decreases to @xmath10 , if true the amplitude , @xmath14 , would increase to this order .    in sec
[ sec : lowt ] we evaluate precisely the same diagrams as at zero temperature to @xmath10 .
the result , ( [ eq:3.9 ] ) , is the sum of two terms : one has exactly the form of ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) , with @xmath7 replaced by @xmath13 , but there is also a second term , special to nonzero temperature .
this type of term was derived recently in nonlinear sigma models in the absence of gauge fields  @xcite : it is nonlocal , analogous to the hard thermal loops of hot gauge theories  @xcite . for @xmath3 , to order @xmath10 we find that the sum of these two terms is such that instead of increasing , like @xmath14 , the amplitude decreases , like @xmath15 , ( [ eq:3.8a ] ) .    in sec .
[ sec : ward ] we give a general analysis of the relationship between the chiral ward identities and the amplitude for @xmath3 .
as is standard @xcite , we use the anomalous ward identity to relate a three point function of currents to the amplitude for @xmath3 . at zero temperature
, this relationship is precise because of the sutherland - veltman theorem @xcite ( in a slight abuse of terminology ) .
the proof of the sutherland - veltman theorem depends crucially upon lorentz invariance . a heat bath , however , provides a preferred rest frame ; extending an analysis of itoyama and mueller  @xcite ,
we show that consequently , the sutherland - veltman theorem does not apply at any nonzero temperature .
this is why @xmath3 changes with temperature , even though the anomaly does nt : besides the contributions from @xmath3 , because there is no sutherland - veltman theorem at nonzero temperature , there are other terms which enter to ensure that the adler - bardeen theorem is satisfied .    in sec .
[ sec : adlerbardeen ] we demonstrate these general arguments by computing the correlator between one axial and two vector currents in the nonlinear sigma model to one loop order , @xmath10 . at nonzero temperature , new tensor structures arise in this correlator ; these structures are why the sutherland - veltman theorem is inapplicable at @xmath16 . nevertheless , when all terms are added together , we find that the adler - bardeen theorem remains valid to one loop order .
this is a useful and nontrivial check of our result for @xmath3 .
technical details are relegated to several appendices .
the wzw action is discussed in appendix  [ awzw ] .
various formulas for hard thermal loops are collected in appendix  [ ahtl ] .
we use the imaginary time formalism at nonzero temperature in this paper , but show in appendix  [ sec : realtime ] how the same results follow in the real time formalism .
lastly , in appendix  [ gamma3pi ] we compute another anomalous amplitude , that for @xmath17  @xcite , at low temperature .    while the principal concern of our work are thermal field theories , we hope that some of our dicussion , especially that in sec .
[ sec : ward ] , might be of more general interest .
perhaps understanding why @xmath3 is not tied to the axial anomaly at nonzero temperature helps us better understand this relation at zero temperature .
we start by computing the effects of pion loops on the amplitude for @xmath18 in vacuum . at one loop order ,
the relevant diagrams are figs .
( 1.a)-(1.d ) : fig .
( 1.a ) gives the pion field renormalization constant , @xmath19 ; fig .
( 1.b ) , the renormalized pion decay constant @xmath7 , while corrections to the amplitude itself are given by figs .
( 1.c ) and ( 1.d ) .    for the `` tadpole '' type diagrams of figs .
( 1.a ) , ( 1.b ) , and ( 1.c ) we use a trick . to compute fig .
( 1.a ) we expand the full lagrangian , ( [ eq : a.10 ] ) , to quartic order in the pion field , @xmath20 + \ldots \end{aligned}\ ] ] in all expressions from the appendix , we need to use the bare pion decay constant , @xmath21 , instead of the renormalized quantity @xmath7 , as one loop effects change @xmath21 into @xmath7 . for the quartic terms , contracting two out of the four pion fields in all possible ways
gives @xmath22 where @xmath23 while this integral is quadratically divergent , we ignore regularization , since its actual value is irrelevant for our purposes . in ( [ eq:2.4 ] )
@xmath24 is the renormalized pion field , and so @xmath25 for the pion decay constant , instead of fig .
( 1.b ) we expand the axial current @xmath26 of ( [ eq : a.11 ] ) to cubic order in the pion field , @xmath27 contracting all pairs of pion fields , @xmath28 so that @xmath29 as is typical of nonlinear sigma models , unphysical , off - shell quantities such as @xmath19 , ( [ eq:2.5a ] ) , depend upon the parametrization of the coset space , while physical expressions , such as that for @xmath7 in ( [ eq:2.8 ] ) , do not .    turning to the amplitude for @xmath3 , from  ( [ eq:1.1 ] )
it is @xmath30 @xmath31 and @xmath32 , and @xmath33 and @xmath34 are the momenta and the polarization vectors of the two photons , both of which lie on the mass shell , @xmath35 . at tree level ,
the bare coupling @xmath36 satisfies @xmath37 the right hand side of ( [ eq:2.10 ] ) is precisely the coefficient of the axial anomaly in qed  @xcite .    to evaluate fig .
( 1.c ) we expand the anomalous current for the coupling to two photons , ( [ eq : a.7 ] ) , ( [ eq : a.11 ] ) , and ( [ eq : a.14 ] ) , to cubic order in the pion field , @xmath38 + \ldots \end{aligned}\ ] ] contracting two pion fields , @xmath39 the two distinct diagrams of fig .
( 1.d ) require more effort : @xmath40 where @xmath41 this peculiar separation of terms in @xmath42 is done in anticipation of the results at nonzero temperature . in vacuum , for @xmath43 , @xmath44 , and so because of the levi - civita symbol , @xmath45 does not contribute to @xmath46 .
hence ( [ eq:2.13 ] ) reduces to a form proportional to the original term in ( [ eq:2.9 ] ) . putting everything together
, the renormalized coupling @xmath47 equals @xmath48 the @xmath49 comes from a factor of @xmath50 for the renormalized pion field , fig .
( 1.a ) and ( [ eq:2.5a ] ) , the @xmath51 from fig .
( 1.c ) , ( [ eq:2.12 ] ) , and the @xmath52 from fig .
( 1.d ) , ( [ eq:2.13 ] ) and ( [ eq:2.14 ] ) .
hence at one loop order , @xmath53 comparing ( [ eq:2.10 ] ) and ( [ eq:2.17 ] ) , we see that the anomaly is not renormalized to one loop order  @xcite : seperate divergences in @xmath7 and @xmath47 cancel in the product  @xcite .
we now compute the decay for a cool pion , at a temperature @xmath54  @xcite .
the diagrams are identical , the only difference is that we need to compute at @xmath55 . for the tadpole diagrams of figs .
( 1.a ) , ( 1.b ) , and ( 1.c ) , the integral is the analogy of ( [ eq:2.5 ] ) : @xmath56 we use the imaginary time formalism , @xmath57 , @xmath58 , and @xmath59 for integral @xmath60 ; after doing the sum over @xmath60 , the bose - einstein statistical distribution function , @xmath61 , appears : @xmath62 @xmath63 is the value of the integral at zero temperature .
henceforth we drop the @xmath64 part of any integrals , assuming that they turn bare into renormalized quantities , such as @xmath21 into @xmath7 , throughout .
the calculation of temperature dependent corrections to the pion decay constant proceeds as in the previous section . ignoring ultraviolet renormalization , in ( [ eq:2.8 ] )
we replace @xmath63 by @xmath65 , and @xmath21 by @xmath7 , to obtain @xmath66 which was quoted in the introduction , ( [ eq:1.2 ] ) .
thus if anything unusual happens at nonzero temperature , it can only be from the diagram of fig .
( 1.d ) . unlike the tadpole diagrams , this diagram has nontrivial momentum dependence , and so we must be more precise in specifying the external momenta . to compute scattering in a thermal bath ,
we continue the euclidean momenta @xmath67 to a minkowski energy @xmath68 by @xmath69 . following  @xcite we further assume that each momentum is not only cool but soft , taking both @xmath70 .
for scattering between soft , cool pions , in  @xcite we showed that the leading temperature corrections are directly analogous to the hard thermal loops of hot gauge theories  @xcite .
we used the background field method , but only in the absence of external gauge fields .
while the perturbative calculations which follow are thus less elegant , they illustrate the physics more directly . from the perspective of @xcite
, there is nothing special about @xmath3 ; the connection to the axial anomaly will be clarified later .
we introduce @xmath71 , @xmath72 with @xmath73 the @xmath74 sign denotes that only the hard thermal loops in the integral are retained , which we denote by @xmath75 and @xmath76 .
the hard thermal loops are the terms @xmath77 , and are given explicitly in appendix [ ahtl ] .
up to an overall constant , @xmath78 is the same hard thermal loop as appears in the polarization tensor for a photon in thermal equilibrium . for a thermal photon ,
the screening of time dependent electric and magnetic fields implies that the mass shell is at @xmath79 . for the sake of simplicity we assume that the photons do not thermalize ; then the only photons which propagate are transverse modes on the light cone , @xmath80 .
the polarization vectors for these modes are purely spatial vectors which satisfy @xmath81 .    from ( [ eq:2.13 ] ) , the contribution to the amplitude from fig .
( 1.d ) , @xmath46 , involves @xmath82 for one of the two photons on their mass shell . using ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) of appendix  [ ahtl ] , @xmath83 where @xmath84 is the polarization vector for the photon with momentum @xmath85 .
only the first term on the right hand side of ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) contributes , as terms in @xmath86 which are @xmath87 or @xmath88 drop out after contraction with @xmath89 . from the definition of @xmath90 , ( [ eq:3.3 ] ) , @xmath91 consequently , while at zero temperature fig .
( 1.d ) contributes to the amplitude for @xmath3 , to leading order at nonzero temperature its contribution vanishes identically , ( [ eq:3.7 ] ) .    knowing that fig .
( 1.d ) does nt contribute , it is then easy to read off the one loop corrections to the coupling @xmath47 to @xmath10 , @xmath92 . as in ( [ eq:3.2a ] ) , we start with ( [ eq:2.16 ] ) , and then replace @xmath63 by @xmath65 , and @xmath21 by @xmath7 .
we keep the @xmath49 from fig .
( 1.a ) , the the @xmath51 from fig .
( 1.c ) , but replace the @xmath93 from fig .
( 1.d ) by @xmath94 , to obtain @xmath95 notice that while ( [ eq:2.8 ] ) is precisely analogous to ( [ eq:3.2a ] ) , because of the difference in fig .
( 1.d ) , ( [ eq:2.16 ] ) is not analogous to ( [ eq:3.8 ] )  there is a difference in sign .
consequently , @xmath96 as discussed in the introduction , naively one might guess that ( [ eq:2.17 ] ) generalizes to nonzero temperature just by replacing @xmath7 and @xmath47 with @xmath13 and @xmath92 , respectively .
this is wrong : to @xmath10 , instead of @xmath97 , as would be guessed from ( [ eq:2.17 ] ) , instead @xmath98 , ( [ eq:3.8a ] ) .
we do not know why , to leading order about low temperature , @xmath92 decreases in exactly the same manner as @xmath13 .
our result in ( [ eq:3.8 ] ) differs from that found by dobado , alvarez - estrada , and gomez  @xcite .
these authors consider the same model , but find @xmath99 to @xmath10 .
our results agree except for fig .
( 1.d ) , which we believe was treated incorrectly  @xcite .    before continuing , following
@xcite we construct the effective lagrangian for @xmath3 to @xmath10 . in @xmath100 of ( [ eq:3.3 ] ) , the term @xmath101 is easy to include . at zero temperature , ( [ eq:2.14 ] )
, this term is the only part of fig .
( 1.d ) which contributes , @xmath93 in ( [ eq:2.16 ] ) , and turns @xmath102 in @xmath47 into @xmath103 in @xmath104 .
thus to @xmath10 , the effect of figs .
( 1.a ) , ( 1.c ) , and the term @xmath101 in @xmath100 of fig .
( 1.d ) is just to change @xmath103 into @xmath105 in the original lagrangian , @xmath12 of ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) .
including the term @xmath76 is less trivial . because of ( [ eq : b.1 ] ) , it must be constructed out of transverse quantities . using ( [ eq : b.7 ] ) , we find that to @xmath10 , the effective lagrangian for @xmath3 is @xmath106 @xmath107 in this expression @xmath108 , @xmath109 and @xmath110 the vector @xmath111 and the integration over the angle @xmath112 arediscussed following ( [ eq : b.2 ] ) .
the non - local term in  ( [ eq:3.9 ] ) is specific to finite temperature . at zero temperature ,
there is no other term besides  ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) that contributes to @xmath113 for photons on the mass - shell . in the terminology of the nonlinear sigma model @xcite , the operator of  ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) is @xmath114 , while operators at next to leading order are @xmath115 .
these operators , however , are either proportional to @xmath116 or @xmath117 , and so vanish on the photon(s ) mass shell , or @xmath118 , and so vanish in the chiral limit .
thus in the vacuum , the only possible change in ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) is the transmutation of @xmath21 into @xmath7 , sec .
[ sec : vac ] . at nonzero temperature , however , there are new nonlocal terms which arise ,  ( [ eq:3.9 ] ) . because they are nonlocal , these new terms are also @xmath114 , and so as important as ( [ eq:1.1])@xcite .
this is the technical reason why the amplitude for @xmath119 depends nontrivially upon temperature .
in the previous section we found that the amplitude for @xmath1 diminishes to leading order in an expansion about low temperature , ( [ eq:3.8a ] ) . the question we address in this section is why is this amplitude tied to the coefficient of the axial anomaly at zero temperature , ( [ eq:2.17 ] ) , but not at nonzero temperature ?
we work in the chiral limit to leading order about zero temperature , @xmath10 , because then we can make certain technical assumptions which simplify the discussion .
the general case is considered at the end of this section .
define the vector current , @xmath120 , and the axial current in the isospin-@xmath121 direction , @xmath122 .
the vector curent is conserved , @xmath123 while the axial current is anomalous , @xmath124 by the adler - bardeen theorem , the coefficient of the right hand side is exact to one loop order  @xcite , and is independent of temperature and density  @xcite .
one quantity we can compute is the ( thermal ) three point green s function between two vector , and one axial vector , current : @xmath125 where @xmath126 is the hamiltonian .
then @xmath127 satisfies current conservation , @xmath128 and the anomalous ward identity , @xmath129 @xmath130 .
to relate the anomalous ward identity to the amplitude for pion decay we follow shore and veneziano  @xcite . at low temperature the pion couples to the axial current as @xmath131 (
this is not valid to @xmath132 ; then the relation is more complicated , @xcite . )    to obtain the amplitude for @xmath133 , we introduce @xmath134 times the matrix element between two @xmath2 currents and a pion , @xmath135 this is related to the pion decay amplitude , ( [ eq:2.9 ] ) , as @xmath136 subtracting the one pion pole term from ( [ eq:4.1 ] ) gives @xmath137 , which by construction is one pion irreducible , @xmath138 again , by current conservation @xmath139 while the anomalous ward identity , ( [ eq:4.2 ] ) , becomes @xmath140 the trick is now to try to deduce general relations using just ( [ eq:4.9 ] ) , ( [ eq:4.8 ] ) , and bose symmetry between the two photons , @xmath141
.    we first discuss zero temperature , where we can invoke euclidean invariance .
the most general pseudo - tensor @xmath137 which satisfies all of our conditions involves three terms : @xmath142 current conservation , ( [ eq:4.9 ] ) , gives @xmath143 while from the anomalous ward identity , ( [ eq:4.8 ] ) , @xmath144 combining these two relations we obtain @xmath145 putting the photons on their mass shell @xmath146 , the left hand side in  ( [ eq:4.13 ] ) reduces to @xmath147 .
this is zero on the pion mass shell , @xmath148 , since by definition @xmath149 is one pion irreducible , and so can not have a pole @xmath150 .
hence the left hand side of ( [ eq:4.13 ] ) vanishes , and we obtain the desired relation between @xmath47 and the coefficient of the axial anomaly , @xmath151 which is  ( [ eq:2.14 ] ) .
this analysis , and especially the tensor decomposition of ( [ eq:4.10 ] ) , is identical to the derivation of the sutherland - veltman theorem  @xcite . historically , this theorem predated the anomaly , and was used to conclude that @xmath152 . by adding the axial anomaly through the anomalous ward identity of ( [ eq:4.8 ] ) , however , we obtain @xmath153 , ( [ eq:4.14 ] ) . from a modern perspective , then , it is precisely the sutherland - veltman theorem which relates the axial anomaly to the amplitude for @xmath3 , and tells us at zero temperature the left hand side of ( [ eq:4.14 ] ) vanishes .
this is no longer true at nonzero temperature .
following itoyama and mueller  @xcite , we write the most general tensor decomposition of @xmath154 . in a thermal bath , however , euclidean symmetry is lost , and the rest frame of the thermal bath , which we take as @xmath155 , enters .
some of the possible tensors include @xmath156 we have only included the terms in @xmath149 which contribute to the ward identities of ( [ eq:4.9 ] ) and ( [ eq:4.8 ] ) .
current conservation gives @xmath157 while the anomalous ward identity fixes    @xmath158    from which follows @xmath159 @xmath160 putting all fields on their mass shell , @xmath80 , @xmath148 , and assuming as before that @xmath161 has no pole @xmath150 , we obtain @xmath162 since the terms on the left hand side involve only @xmath163 and @xmath164 , there is no reason for them to vanish even if @xmath165 ; thus the direct connection between @xmath92 , @xmath13 , and the anomaly is lost .
we stress that , as always , the adler - bardeen theorem remains valid , and gives ( [ eq:4.18a ] ) .
it is only the sutherland - veltman theorem which no longer applies at nonzero temperature .
the above analysis only applies to leading order in low temperature , @xmath10 . this is because beyond leading order , the pion mass shell is no longer at @xmath166 @xcite ; also , as photons thermalize , their mass shell moves off the light cone
this is incorporated by using ( [ eq:4.18a ] ) instead of ( [ eq:4.18 ] ) .
for instance , we can understand how the anomalous ward identity is satisfied in a chirally symmetric phase . from explicit calculation in a constituent quark model @xcite ,
@xmath3 vanishes once chiral symmetry is restored .
this does not conflict with the anomalous ward identity since even if @xmath167 , there are other terms which can ensure that ( [ eq:4.18a ] ) is satisfied . for photons which do not thermalize ,
so @xmath80 , even assuming that at the chiral critical point that the pion mass shell is @xmath166 , the tensors @xmath168 and/or @xmath169 will in general be nonzero .
our analysis agrees with the results of contreras and loewe  @xcite , who computed the triangle diagram at @xmath55 with massive fermions .
their result , ( 1.2 ) , is directly related to @xmath137 .
there are two terms : the first is regular , temperature dependent , and gives the amplitude for @xmath119 , while the second is the anomaly , and is independent of temperature .    at first sight
it might appear peculiar that the sutherland - veltman theorem applies at zero temperature , but fails at any nonzero temperature . even at zero temperature
, however , the sutherland - veltman theorem only applies in the chiral limit when both photons are on their mass shell . without all of these conditions ,
the left hand side of ( 4.13 ) does not vanish , and @xmath47 is not given by ( 4.14 ) .
an example of this occurs when one ( or both ) of the photons are off the mass shell @xcite , even if @xmath148 .
in particular , in the limit of large @xmath170 , it is known that @xmath171 @xcite .
thus on the right hand side of ( 4.13 ) , we can neglect @xmath172 relative to the anomaly term , @xmath173 , and ( 4.13 ) tells us that a combination of @xmath174 and @xmath161 are given entirely by the anomaly , @xmath175 .
in this section we calculate the correlator @xmath176 to @xmath10 in the nonlinear sigma model .
this allows us to check explicitly the temperature dependence of @xmath13 and @xmath92 found previously in sec .
[ sec : lowt ] .
it is also illuminating to see exactly which amplitudes enter at one loop order in the nonlinear sigma model , and how they conspire to satisfy the adler - bardeen theorem .    at tree level in the nonlinear sigma model
, there is no direct coupling between two vector and one axial vector currents , so @xmath177 .
thus the anomalous ward identity , ( [ eq:4.2 ] ) , is satisfied entirely by the one pion reducible term , ( [ eq:4.8 ] ) , with @xmath178 .
this is illustrated in fig .
contributions to @xmath179 are generated at one loop order . in order to compute these
, it is necessary to compute corrections to the axial current .
we have computed these in two ways . the most direct is to follow the original method of wess and zumino @xcite . besides the the photon field @xmath180
, which couples to the electromagnetic current @xmath120 , we also introduce an external field @xmath181 which couples to the axial current @xmath182 .
one then differentiates the generating functional of wess and zumino with respect to the external fields @xmath180 and @xmath181 . at one loop order ,
the terms required are @xmath183 and @xmath184 ; @xmath185 are the charged pion fields . after lengthy calculation
, we find @xmath186 @xmath187 to leading order in @xmath188 , this @xmath189 is invariant under an electromagnetic gauge transformation , @xmath190 the terms in @xmath189 can be viewed as corrections to the axial current . in appendix
a we compute these corrections using the noether construction of the axial current .
this is somewhat delicate , since it is necessary to start with a lagrangian density ( and not merely a lagrangian ) which is manifestly gauge invariant .
the result , ( [ eq : a.19 ] ) , agrees with ( [ eq:5.1 ] ) .    through the diagrams of fig .
( 3 ) , the couplings in @xmath191 generate the one pion irreducible terms in @xmath154 .
we begin with the results at zero temperature .
given the couplings in @xmath192 , the only tensor structure which arises from fig .
( 3 ) is @xmath193 . comparing with the tensors in  ( [ eq:4.10 ] ) , then , at one loop order automatically @xmath194 . for @xmath195 , we find @xmath196 the contribution @xmath197 is from fig .
( 3.a ) , that @xmath198 from the two diagrams of fig .
( 3.b ) . because all of the @xmath199 s vanish , current conservation  ( [ eq:4.12 ] ) and the anomaly equation  ( [ eq:4.11 ] ) , are satisfied rather trivially . that the latter vanishes is equivalent to the sutherland - veltman theorem ,  ( [ eq:4.14 ] )
this explains our results in sec .
[ sec : vac ] , where we found that at zero temperature , the renormalization of @xmath7 and @xmath47 exactly compensate each other .    at nonzero temperature
we can evaluate @xmath200 using the results of sec .
[ sec : lowt ] .
( 3.a ) is a tadpole diagram , and so as at zero temperature , just contributes to @xmath195 .
thus the only possibility for a new tensor structure is from the hard thermal loop in fig .
for one ordering of momenta , fig .
( 3.b ) gives @xmath201 where @xmath202 is given in  ( [ eq:3.3 ] ) .
putting the photon momentum @xmath31 on its mass shell , we require the result for @xmath203 in  ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) .
we drop all terms in @xmath204 , ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) , since they vanish upon contraction with the photon polarization tensor .
the term @xmath205 in  ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) cancels against the same term in  ( [ eq:3.3 ] ) ; thus at nonzero temperature , there is no contribution to @xmath195 from fig .
( 3.b ) , and @xmath206 comparing to ( [ eq:5.1a ] ) , again fig .
( 3.a ) gives the term @xmath207 , and fig .
( 3.b ) the term @xmath208 . that fig .
( 3.b ) does nt contribute is just like the same result for @xmath92 , fig .
( 1.d ) and ( [ eq:3.8 ] ) .
( 3.b ) will contribute , however , through the term @xmath209 in @xmath203 in  ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) . comparing with the tensor decomposition of  ( [ eq:4.15 ] )
, we find : @xmath210 since these are the only diagrams at one loop order , @xmath211 consequently , @xmath212 thus we can see that our results satisfy current conservation , ( [ eq:4.17 ] ) and the anomaly equation of ( [ eq:4.18 ] ) .
last but not least , the latter only holds given @xmath13 and @xmath213 in ( [ eq:1.1 ] ) and ( [ eq:3.8 ] ) , and so provides a nontrivial check of these calculations .
notice that while there is a factor of @xmath214 in @xmath169 , it is essentially kinematic in origin , as envisioned by itoyama and mueller @xcite . one factor of @xmath215 arises from the definition of @xmath169 , ( [ eq:4.15 ] ) , while the other can be seen to arise from a directional singularity , @xmath216 , in the integral of  ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) .
further , notice that there is a ( logarithmic ) collinear divergence in the integral of  ( [ eq : b.5 ] ) .
this singularity drops out of the full amplitude after contracting with the polarization tensor of the photon .
in this paper we have concentrated exclusively on the anomalous decay of @xmath3 .
we have done so because it is the most familiar anomalous decay , and because the connection to the axial anomaly is especially close . for the collisions of heavy ions at ultrarelativistic energies ,
though , this is a purely academic point , since any high temperature plasma flies apart long before a @xmath0 has a chance to decay electromagnetically .
our basic point is much more general , however .
while the axial anomaly for fermions is independent of temperature , anomalous decays of mesonic fields change with temperature .
processes of obvious interest for hadronic systems include @xmath217 into two gluons and the decays of the @xmath68 meson @xcite .
electroweak processes include couplings of the axion .
whether the changes in these couplings are physically relevant can only be determined after detailed calculation ; what is certain is that they do change . in a cosmological context ,
the mechanisms of electroweak baryogenesis involve the effective coupling of a pseudoscalar field to the pontryagin density for the @xmath218 gauge field . in vacuum , this coupling is directly related to the anomalous divergence of the baryon current .
it was argued in  @xcite that this coupling must be suppressed above the electroweak phase transition ; presumably this can be understood from our analysis .
lastly , we note that the t hooft anomaly matching conditions @xcite strongly constrain the appearance of massless bound states in confining theories . due to the failure of the sutherland - veltman theorem , sec .
iv , these conditions are clearly much less restrictive at nonzero temperature .    if nothing else , perhaps this gives us a greater appreciation of the wonder of the fermion axial anomaly . while every other anomalous decays changes in complicated and detailed ways , that alone remains inviolate , always .
we thank w. marciano for useful conversations .
this work is supported by a doe grant at brookhaven national laboratory , de - ac02 - 76ch00016 .
in this appendix we review the wess - zumino - witten ( wzw ) model coupled to an external photon field . along with establishing notation ,
this also enables us to discuss a novel form of the wzw model , mentioned recently  @xcite , and to comment about the two currents in the two - flavor version of the wzw model .    for @xmath219 flavors ,
the model is constructed from a @xmath220 unitary matrix @xmath221 , @xmath222 . in the absence of gauge fields ,
the action is the sum of two terms , @xmath223 , with @xmath224 the usual action for a nonlinear sigma model , @xmath225 the generators of @xmath226 are the matrices @xmath227 , normalized as @xmath228 .
this lagrangian is invariant under global @xmath229 unitary transformations , @xmath230 .
for example , under axial transformations , for which @xmath231 , the corresponding conserved current is @xmath232 the second piece of the action is the wess - zumino - witten term , @xmath233 where the integral is over a five - dimensional region whose boundary is four - dimensional spacetime .
we wish to couple @xmath221 to a photon field @xmath234 in a gauge invariant manner . for three flavors
the charge matrix is @xmath235 , and so we introduce the covariant derivative , @xmath236 $ ] . by construction , both @xmath221 and @xmath237 transform covariantly under local @xmath238 gauge transformations , @xmath239 , @xmath240 , @xmath241 , @xmath242 . as usual , to make @xmath243 gauge invariant we simply replace the ordinary by the covariant derivative , @xmath244 .
we can also do this for @xmath245 by replacing @xmath246 with the gauge covariant @xmath247 .
using @xmath248 in @xmath245 gives something which is manifestly gauge invariant , but incomplete , since it can be shown that the ensuing equations of motion depend on the fifth dimension . in five dimensions , however , there are several other gauge invariant terms which can be added , involving powers of the ( abelian , gauge invariant ) field strength , @xmath249 .
the correct action then follows uniquely by requiring that the equations of motion are independent of the fifth dimension@xcite , @xmath250 this expression is manifestly gauge invariant but not obviously independent of the fifth dimension  @xcite .
this is in contrast to the usual action , in which the terms which couple to the gauge field are manifestly four dimensional , but not evidently gauge invariant : @xmath251 , where @xmath252 where @xmath253 and @xmath254 the lagrangian  [ eq : a.5 ] is the form given by witten  @xcite : it is gauge invariant up to boundary terms .    henceforth we follow brihaye , pak , and rossi  @xcite and restrict ourselves to two flavors . introducing the pion field @xmath255 , @xmath256 then for @xmath257 @xmath258 @xmath259 .
the original lagrangian @xmath243 becomes @xmath260 the axial current of ( [ eq : a.2 ] ) is @xmath261 in the wzw term , @xmath262 vanishes , while using the identity , @xmath263 we find that @xmath264 the charge @xmath265 ; in going from ( [ eq : a.6 ] ) to ( [ eq : a.13 ] ) , it turns out that the contribution from the piece @xmath266 drops out .
this demonstrates that @xmath267 is directly proportional to the baryon current  @xcite .
further , we find that @xmath268 is proportional to the axial current in the isospin-@xmath121 direction , ( [ eq : a.11 ] ) , @xmath269 that for two flavors @xmath267 and @xmath268 are proportional to the baryon and axial isospin currents does not seem to have been recognized previously . notice that @xmath268 is only proportional to the axial current for the original lagrangian , @xmath243 ; as is discussed in sec  [ sec : adlerbardeen ] , the complete axial current includes contributions from the wzw term .
we do not know if @xmath267 and @xmath268 are equal to the analogous currents for three or more flavors .    to conclude , we discuss how to compute the axial current @xmath270 of sec .
[ sec : adlerbardeen ] using the noether construction .
the general form for the gauged axial current is rather involved .
since we compute perturbatively , however , we just compute the current in the same way . under an infinitesimal axial rotation , @xmath271 , the pion field transforms nonlinearly , @xmath272 to @xmath273 and @xmath274 .
after performing such a transformation , the requisite current is then the coefficient of @xmath275 .    in the present case , however , while the lagrangian is ( of course ) gauge invariant , the lagrangian density need not be . in particular , the lagragian density of ( [ eq : a.5 ] ) is not gauge invariant ; under a local gauge transformation , it transforms by a total derivative . to the order at which we compute , we add the following term to the lagrangian density : @xmath276 @xmath277 for example , the first piece contributes a chern - simons term to the current . with the addition of ( [ eq : a.20 ] ) ,
the lagrangian density is manifestly gauge invariant , and the axial current is @xmath278 when @xmath279 , @xmath182 reduces to the axial vector current in the absence of electromagnetism , @xmath280 , as can be verified by expanding ( [ eq : a.11 ] ) .
the terms linear and quadratic in @xmath180 agree with the calculation from the wess - zumino consistency condition , ( [ eq:5.1 ] ) .
this ambiguity in the construction of the axial current is familiar . instead of the gauge invariant , anomalous current used in sec .
[ sec : ward ] , by subtracting off a chern - simons term , we can choose to work instead with a current which is conserved but not gauge invariant .
we collect some results of hard thermal loops , with minor differences in notation from previous work  @xcite .
the simplest hard thermal loop is the integral of ( [ eq:3.1 ] ) , @xmath281 .
after that , there is @xmath86 of ( [ eq:3.3 ] ) and ( [ eq:3.4 ] ) . by definition
the hard thermal loop includes only only the terms @xmath77 in the integral , in the limit of soft external momentum @xmath282 . in this approximation , @xmath45 is tranverse : @xmath283 one way of writing @xmath284 is @xmath285 where @xmath286 and @xmath111 ; @xmath112 is a three vector of unit norm , @xmath287 , so that @xmath288 is null , @xmath289 , and @xmath290 .
it is a dummy variable , in that one integrates over all directions of @xmath112 , as @xmath291 . in component form , @xmath292 @xmath293 @xmath294 @xmath295
where @xmath296 , and the @xmath297 are legendre functions of the second kind , @xmath298 for @xmath3 , we need the value of @xmath86 near the light cone , @xmath299 , @xmath300 @xmath301 where @xmath302 .
an equivalent but useful expression for ( [ eq : b.2 ] ) is @xmath303 \ ; ; \end{aligned}\ ] ] from which follows @xmath304 @xmath305 the abelian field strengths of the vector fields @xmath306 and @xmath307 enter because @xmath78 is transverse , ( [ eq : b.1 ] ) .
we found in sec .  [
sec : lowt ] that the contribution from fig .
( 1.d ) vanishes to order @xmath309 . in this appendix
we check this result using the real time approach . in this instance , the real time method is simple and not problematic .
it also shows that the diagram has no temperature dependent terms whatsoever : the entire diagram is equal , identically , to its value at zero temperature .    after dropping irrelevant terms proportional to @xmath310 , fig .
( 1.d ) is proportional to the integral @xmath311 @xmath312 , @xmath313 .
the physical amplitude is obtained by contraction with the polarization vectors for the two photons .
if @xmath314 lies in the @xmath315-direction , say , then @xmath316 must lie along the @xmath317- or @xmath318-directions .
the angular @xmath319 integration will then vanish unless @xmath320 .
thus the integral reduces to @xmath321 @xmath322 this integral vanishes after integration over @xmath323 ; note that this physical amplitude is free of any collinear divergences .
this confirms our results obtained with the imaginary time formalism .
in this section we compute the one loop corrections to the amplitude @xmath325 for soft , cool pions .
this provides another , less trivial , example of hard thermal loops .
corrections to the five dimensional wess - zumino - witten term , ( [ eq : a.3 ] ) , have been computed in  @xcite using a background field method ; it would be interesting using this method to compute the one loop corrections to the gauged wzw model , ( [ eq : a.5 ] ) .        at tree level , the amplitude for @xmath327 scattering is @xmath328 where @xmath329 is the momentum of the pion with isospin @xmath330 , _ etc _ , and @xmath331 from ( [ eq : a.10 ] ) , the amplitude for the scattering between four pions is @xmath332 \ ; , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath333 , _ etc_.      in the vacuum , @xmath336 , up to terms @xmath337 which drop out of the amplitude . to @xmath114 , @xmath338 the @xmath339 comes from @xmath340 , fig .
( 1.a ) and ( [ eq:2.5a ] ) , the @xmath341 from fig .
( 4.a ) and ( [ eq : d.1 ] ) , the @xmath342 from fig .
( 4.b ) and  ( [ eq : d.5 ] ) . using ( [ eq:2.8 ] ) ,
then , to one loop order in vacuum  ( [ eq : d.3 ] ) renormalizes with no change in form , @xmath343 analogous to ( [ eq:2.10 ] ) and ( [ eq:2.17 ] ) .    at low temperature ,
@xmath344 is replaced by @xmath345 of ( [ eq:3.3 ] ) and ( [ eq:3.4 ] ) . using  ( [ eq : b.7 ] ) , we find that the effective lagrangian for @xmath346 is similar to that for @xmath3 , ( [ eq:3.9 ] ) .
one term is as at zero temperature , with @xmath7 replaced by @xmath13 , while the second is a hard thermal loop : @xmath347 @xmath348 where @xmath349    s. l. adler , phys .
rev . * 177 * , 2426 ( 1969 ) ; j. s. bell and r. jackiw , nuovo cim . * 60 * , 147 ( 1969 ) ; s.l .
adler and w.a .
bardeen , phys . rev . * 182 * , 1517 ( 1969 ) ; b. zumino , y. s. wu , and a. zee , nucl . phys . *
b239 * , 477 ( 1984 ) ; m. a. shifman , phys . rept . * 209 * , 341 ( 1991 ) . l. dolan and r. jackiw , phys . rev . * d9 * , 3320 ( 1974 ) ; m. reuter and w. dittrich , phys . rev .
* d32 * , 513 ( 1985 ) ; f. ruiz ruiz and r. alvarez - estrada , phys . lett . *
b180 * , 153 ( 1986 ) ; a. das and a. karev , phys . rev . *
d36 * , 623 ( 1987 ) ; r. baier and e. pilon , zeit .
* c52 * , 339 ( 1991 ) . h.  itoyama and a.  h. mueller , nucl . phys .
* b218 * , 349 ( 1983 ) .
l . liu and g
ni , phys . rev .
* d38 * , 3840 ( 1988 ) ; x .- g . he and g. c. joshi , _ ibid . _ * 41 * , 3796 ( 1990 ) ; r .- t .
wang , jour . of phys .
* a23 * , 5555 ( 1990 ) ; a. a. rawlinson , d. jackson , and r. j. crewther , zeit .
* c56 * , 679 ( 1992 ) ; a.  v. smilga , phys . rev . * d45 * , 1378 ( 1992 ) ; a. gomez nicola and r. f. alvarez - estrada , intl . jour . of mod
a9 * , 1423 ( 1994 ) .
r.  jackiw , in _ current algebra and anomalies _ , ( princeton univ .
press , princeton , 1985 ) ; c. itzykson and j .- b .
zuber , _ quantum field theory _ , ( mc - graw - hill , new york , 1980 ) g. m. shore and g. veneziano , nucl
* b381 * , 3 ( 1992 ) .
a.  dobado , r. f. alvarez - estrada , and a.  gomez nicola , phys . lett . *
b319 * , 238 ( 1993 ) .
a.  dobado , r. f. alvarez - estrada , and a.  gomez nicola , phys . lett .
* b324 * , 345 ( 1994 ) . s. weinberg , physica * 96a * , 327 ( 1979 ) ; j. gasser and h. leutwyler , ann . of phys . * 158 * , 142 ( 1984 ) ; j. f. donoghue , e. golowich , and b. r. holstein , _ dynamics of the standard model _ ( cambridge univ .
press , ny , 1992 ) ; g. ecker , prog . part .
. phys . * 35 * , 1 ( 1995 ) .
j.  wess and b.  zumino , phys .
lett * b37 * , 95 ( 1971 ) ; e.  witten , nucl . phys . * b223 * , 422 ( 1983 ) o. kaymakcalan and j. schechter , phys . rev .
* d31 * , 1109 ( 1984 ) ; y. brihaye , n. pak , and p. rossi , nucl . phys . *
b254 * , 71 ( 1985 ) ; u. g. meissner , phys .
* 161 * , 213 ( 1988 ) . c. m. hull and b. spence , mod .
. lett . * a6 * , 969 ( 1991 ) .
m. creutz and m. tytgat , phys .
lett . * 76 * , 4671 ( 1996 ) ; m. creutz and m. tytgat , proceedings of lattice 96 , bnl preprint bnl-63465 , hep - lat/9608007 b. r.  holstein and j. f.  donoghue and y. c. r. lin , phys .
lett . * 55 * , 2766 ( 1985 ) ; j. f.  donoghue and d. wyler , nucl . phys . *
b316 * , 289 ( 1989 ) ; j. bijnens , a. bramon and f. cornet z. phys .
* c46 * , 599 ( 1990 ) ; r. akhoury and a. alfakih , ann . phys . * 210 * , 81 ( 1991 ) ; j.  bijnens , nucl . phys .
* b367 * , 709 ( 1991 ) ; int . j. mod
* a8 * , 3045 ( 1993 ) , and references therein .
r. d. pisarski and m. tytgat , bnl preprint bnl - pt-961 , hep - ph/9611206 . c. contreras and m. loewe ,
* c40 * , 253 ( 1988 ) ; t. hashimoto , k. hirose , t. kanki , and o. miyamura , phys . rev . *
d37 * , 3331 ( 1988 ) ; b. pin - zhen and j. rafelski , mod .
a7 * , 2493 ( 1992 ) ; ( e ) _ ibid . _ * a7 * , 3439 ( 1992 ) ; a. gomez nicola and r. f. alvarez - estrada , zeit .
* c60 * , 711 ( 1993 ) ; s. p. klevansky , nucl .
* a575 * , 605 ( 1994 ) ; d. blaschke , m. jaminon , yu . l. kalinovsky , p. petrow , s. schmidt , and b. van den bossche , _ ibid .
_ * a2415 * , 1 ( 1995 ) .
p. binetruy and m. k. gaillard , phys
* d32 * , 931 ( 1985 ) ; j. gasser and h. leutwyler , phys . lett .
* b184 * , 83 ( 1987 ) ; m. dey , v. l. eletsky , and b. l. ioffe , _ ibid . _ * b252 * , 620 ( 1990 ) ; a. bochkarev and j. kapusta , phys . rev . *
d54 * , 4066 ( 1996 ) .
r. d. pisarski and m. tytgat , phys . rev . *
d54 * , 2989 ( 1996 ) .
r. d. pisarski , phys .
* 63 * , 1129 ( 1989 ) ; e. braaten and r. d. pisarski , nucl . phys . *
b337 * , 569 ( 1990 ) ; _ ibid .
_ * b339 * , 310 ( 1990 ) ; phys . rev . *
d45 * , r1827 ( 1992 ) ; j. frenkel and j. c. taylor , nucl . phys . *
b334 * , 199 ( 1990 ) ; _ ibid . _
* b374 * , 156 ( 1992 ) ; j. c. taylor and s. m. h. wong , _ ibid . _
* b346 * , 115 ( 1990 ) ; j. p. blaizot and e. iancu , _ ibid . _
* b390 * , 589 ( 1993 ) ; _ ibid .
_ * b417 * , 608 ( 1994 ) ; _ ibid . _ * b434 * , 662 ( 1995 ) ; r. efraty and v. p. nair , phys . rev . *
d47 * , 5601 ( 1993 ) ; r. jackiw and v. p. nair , _ ibid .
_ * d48 * , 4991 ( 1993 ) ; r. jackiw , q. liu , and c. lucchesi , _ ibid . _ * d49 * , 6787 ( 1994 ) ;
p. f. kelly , q. liu , c. lecchesi , and c. manuel , _ ibid . _ * d50 * , 4209 ( 1994 ) .
d. g. sutherland , nucl .
b2 * , 433 ( 1967 ) ; m. veltman , proc .
a301 * , 107 ( 1967 ) .
pisarski , in _ from thermal field theory to neural networks : a day to remember tanguy altherr _ , edited by p. aurenche , p. sorba , and g. veneziano .
( world scientific publishing , singapore , 1996 ) ; phys . rev . lett . *
76 * , 3084 ( 1996 ) ; r. baier , m. dirks , and o. kober , phys . rev . *
d54 * , 2222 ( 1996 ) . l. ametller , j. bijnens , a. bramon and f. cornet , phys .
* b303 * , 140 ( 1993 ) ; j. bijnens , a. bramon and f. cornet , z. phys .
* c46 * , 599 ( 1990 ) .
@xmath350 , ( 2.13 ) , equals @xmath351 , ( 5 ) of ref .
the terms @xmath77 in @xmath350 define @xmath75 , ( 3.4 ) . from fig .
( 1.b ) of ref .
@xcite , which is our fig .
( 1.d ) , in ( 12 ) they obtain @xmath352 this does not agree with ( [ eq:3.7 ] ) , for which the coefficient of the term @xmath353 vanishes . s. j. brodsky and g. p. lepage , phys .
lett . * 87b * , 359 ( 1979 ) ; phys . rev . * d22 * , 2157 ( 1980 ) ; _ ibid .
_ , * d24 * , 1808 ( 1981 ) ; l. arnellos , w. j. marciano , and z. parsa , nucl .
* b 196 * , 371 ( 1982 ) ; a. anselm , a. johansen , e. leader , and l. lukaszuk , hep - ph/9603444 .
m. dine and s. thomas , phys . lett . *
b328 * , 73 ( 1994 ) .
g. t hooft , in _ recent developments in gauge theories _ , ed .
g. t hooft _ et al . _ ( plenum press , n.y . , 1980 ) .
this method also allows one to gauge an arbitary subgroup @xmath126 of @xmath354 , whether or not @xmath126 is anomaly free .
if the @xmath126 anomalies do not cancel , however , there is a doubling of the effective number of degrees of freedom , similar to the doubling which occurs for fermions on a lattice  @xcite .


signals comprised of stream of pulses play a key role in many engineering applications , such as ultrasound imaging and radar ( see , e.g. @xcite ) . in some applications , the signal under examination is known to be real and non - negative . for instance , in single - molecule microscopy we measure the convolution of positive point sources with the microscope s point spread function @xcite .
another example arises from the problem of estimating the orientations of the white matter fibers in the brain using diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging ( mri ) . in this application ,
the measured data is modeled as the convolution of a sparse positive signal on the sphere , which represents the unknown orientations , with a known point spread function that acts as a low - pass filter @xcite .
this paper focuses its attention on the model of _ positive stream of pulses_. in this model , the measurements are comprised of a sum of unknown shifts of a kernel @xmath0 with positive coefficients , i.e. @xmath1=\sum_{m}c_{m}\mathbf{g}\left[k - k_{m}\right]+\tilde{\mathbf{n}}[k],\quad k\in\mathbb{z},\quad c_{m}>0,\ ] ] where @xmath2 is a bounded error term ( noise , model mismatch ) obeying @xmath3\right|\leq\delta$ ] .
we do not assume any prior knowledge on the noise statistics .
the pulse @xmath0 is assumed to be a sampled version of a scaled continuous kernel , namely , @xmath4:=\mathbf{g}\left(\frac{k}{\sigma n}\right)$ ] , where @xmath5 is the continuous kernel , @xmath6 is a scaling parameter and @xmath7 is the sampling interval .
for instance , if @xmath0 is gaussian kernel , then @xmath8 denotes its standard deviation .
the delayed versions of the kernel , @xmath9 $ ] , are often referred to as _ atoms_. we aim to estimate the set of delays @xmath10 and the positive amplitudes @xmath11 from the measured data @xmath12 $ ] .
the sought parameters of the stream of pulses model can be defined by a signal of the form @xmath13:=\sum_{m}c_{m}\boldsymbol{\delta}\left[k - k_{m}\right],\quad c_{m}>0,\label{eq : x}\ ] ] where @xmath14 $ ] is the one - dimensional kronecker delta function @xmath15:= \begin{cases } 1 , & k=0,\\ 0 & k\neq 0 .
\end{cases}\ ] ] in this manner , the problem can be thought of as a sparse deconvolution problem , namely , @xmath16=\left(\mathbf{g}\ast\left(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{n}\right)\right)[k],\label{eq : model1}\ ] ] where @xmath17 denotes a discrete convolution and @xmath18 $ ] is the error term .    the one - dimensional model can be extended to higher - dimensions . in this paper
we also analyze in detail the model of two - dimensional positive stream of pulses given by @xmath19 & = & \left(\mathbf{g_{2}}\ast\left(\mathbf{x_{2}}+\mathbf{n}\right)\right)\left[\mathbf{k}\right],\label{eq : model2}\\   & = & \sum_{m}c_{m}\mathbf{g_{2}}\left[\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{m}\right]+\tilde{\mathbf{n}}[\mathbf{k}],\nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath20\in\mathbb{z}^{2}$ ] and @xmath21 is a two - dimensional pulse . as in the one - dimensional case ,
the pulse is defined as a sampled version of a two - dimensional kernel @xmath22 by @xmath23=\mathbf{g_2}\left(\frac{k_{1}}{\sigma_{1}n_{1}},\frac{k_{2}}{\sigma_{2}n_{2}}\right)$ ] .
the signal @xmath24:=\sum_{m}c_{m}\boldsymbol{\delta}\left[\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{m}\right],\quad c_{m}>0,\label{eq : x2}\ ] ] defines the underlying parameters to be estimated , where here @xmath25 denotes the two - dimensional kronecker delta function . for the sake of simplicity ,
we assume throughout the paper that @xmath26 .
many algorithms have been suggested to recover @xmath27 from the stream of pulses @xmath28 .
a naive approach would be to estimate @xmath27 via least - squares estimation .
however , even if the convolution as in ( [ eq : model1 ] ) is invertible , the condition number of its associated convolution matrix tends to be extremely high .
therefore , the recovery process is not robust ( see for instance section 4.3 in @xcite ) .
suprisngly , the least - squares fails even in a noise - free environment due to amplification of numerical errors .
we refer the readers to figure 1 in @xcite for a demonstration of this phenomenon .
a different line of algorithms includes the well - known prony method , music , matrix pencil and esprit , see for instance @xcite .
these algorithms concentrate on estimating the set of delays .
once the set of delays is known , the coefficients can be easily estimated by least - squares .
these methods rely on the observation that in fourier domain the stream of pulses model ( [ eq:1 ] ) reduces to a weighted sum of complex exponentials , under the assumption that the fourier transform of @xmath0 is non - vanishing .
recent papers analyzed the performance and stability of these algorithms @xcite .
however , as the fourier transform of the pulse @xmath0 tends to be localized and in general contains small values , the stability results do not hold directly for the stream of pulses model .
furthermore , these methods do not exploit the positivity of the coefficients ( if it exists ) , which is the focus of this work .
in recent years , many convex optimization techniques have been suggested and analyzed thoroughly for the task super - resolution .
super - resolution is the problem of resolving signals from their noisy low - resolution measurements , see for instance @xcite .
the main pillar of these works is the duality between robust super - resolution and the existence of an interpolating polynomial in the measurement space , called _
dual certificate_. similar techniques have been applied to super - resolve signals on the sphere @xcite ( see also @xcite ) and to the recovery of non - uniform splines from their projection onto the space of low - degree algebraic polynomials @xcite .
the problem of recovering a general signal @xmath27 ( not necessarily non - negative ) robustly from stream of pulses was considered in @xcite .
it was shown that the duality between robust recovery and the existence of an interpolating function holds in this case as well .
particularly , it turns out that robust recovery is possible if there exists a function , comprised of shifts of the kernel @xmath0 and its derivatives , that satisfies several interpolation requirements ( see lemma [ lemma : q ] ) . in this case , the solution of a standard convex program achieves recovery error ( in @xmath29 norm ) of @xmath30 , for some constant @xmath31 that depends only on the convolution kernel @xmath0 . in @xcite
it was proven that the support of the recovered signal is clustered around the support of the target signal @xmath27 .
the behavior of the solution for large @xmath32 is analyzed in detail in @xcite .
the main insight of @xcite is that the existence of such interpolating function relies on two interrelated pillars .
first , the support of the signal , defined as @xmath33\text{\ensuremath{\neq}}0\right\ } $ ] , should satisfy a _ separation condition _ of the form @xmath34 for some kernel - dependent constant @xmath35 which does not depend on @xmath32 or @xmath8 .
in the two - dimensional case , the separation condition gets the form . ]
@xmath36 where @xmath37\in\mathbb{r}^2 $ ] and @xmath38 .
the second pillar is that the kernel @xmath0 would be an _
admissible kernel_. an admissible kernel is a function that satisfies some mild localization properties .
these properties are discussed in the next section ( see definition [ def : kernel ] ) .
two prime examples for admissible kernels are the gaussian kernel @xmath39 and the cauchy kernel @xmath40 . in @xcite , the minimal separation constant @xmath41 which is required for the existence of the interpolating function ( and hence , for robust recovery ) was evaluated numerically to be 1.1 and 0.5 for the gaussian and cauchy kernels , respectively .
inspired by the recent work on super - resolution of positive point sources @xcite , this work focuses on the model of positive stream of pulses .
in contrast to @xcite , we prove that in this case the separation condition is no longer necessary to achieve stable recovery .
we generalize and improve the results of @xcite as discussed in detail in section [ sec : main - result ] .
particularly , we show that positive signals of the form ( [ eq : x ] ) can be recovered robustly from the measurements @xmath28 ( [ eq : model1 ] ) and the recovery error is proportional to the noise level @xmath42 .
furthermore , the recovery error grows exponentially with the density of the signal s support .
we characterize the density of the support using the notion of rayleigh - regularity , which is defined precisely in section [ sec : main - result ] .
the recovery error also depends on the localization properties of the kernel @xmath0 .
a similar result holds for the two - dimensional case .
we use the following notation throughout the paper .
we denote an index @xmath43 by brackets @xmath44 $ ] and a continuous variables @xmath45 by parenthesis @xmath46 .
we use boldface small and capital letters for vectors and matrices , respectively .
calligraphic letters , e.g. @xmath47 , are used for sets and @xmath48 for the cardinality of the set .
the @xmath49 derivative of @xmath5 is denoted as @xmath50 . for vectors ,
we use the standard definition of @xmath51 norm as @xmath52\right|^{p}\right)^{1/p}$ ] for @xmath53 .
we reserve @xmath7 to denote the sampling interval of ( [ eq:1 ] ) and define the support of the signal @xmath27 as @xmath54\text{\ensuremath{\neq}}0\right\ } $ ] .
we write @xmath55 to denote some @xmath43 satisfying @xmath56 .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows .
section [ sec : main - result ] presents some basic definitions and states our main theoretical results .
additionally , we give a detailed comparison with the literature .
the results are proved in sections [ sec : proof_main_th ] and [ sec : proof_th2 ] .
section [ sec : numerical - experiments ] shows numerical experiments , validating the theoretical results .
section [ sec : conclusions ] concludes the work and aims to suggest potential extensions .
in @xcite , it was shown that the underlying one - dimensional signal @xmath27 can be recovered robustly from a stream of pulses @xmath28 if its support satisfies a separation condition of the form ( [ eq:1dseparation ] ) .
following @xcite , this work deals with non - negative signals and shows that in this case the separation condition is not necessary . specifically , we prove that the recovery error depends on the density of the signal s support .
this density is defined and quantified by the notion of rayleigh - regularity .
more precisely , a one - dimensional signal with rayleigh regularity @xmath57 has at most @xmath57 spikes within a resolution cell :    [ def : rayleigh]we say that the set @xmath58 is rayleigh - regular with parameters @xmath59 and write @xmath60 if every interval @xmath61 of length @xmath62 contains no more that @xmath57 elements of @xmath63 : @xmath64    equipped with definition [ def : rayleigh ] , we define the sets of signals @xmath65 we further let @xmath66 be the set of signals in @xmath67 with non - negative values .    if @xmath68 , then @xmath69 . if @xmath70 , then @xmath71 .
besides the density of the signal s support , robust estimation of the delays and amplitudes also depends on the convolution kernel @xmath0 .
particularly , the kernel should satisfy some mild localization properties . in short ,
the kernel and its first derivatives should decay sufficiently fast .
we say that a kernel @xmath0 is _ non - negative admissible _ if it meets the following definition :    [ def : kernel]we say that @xmath0 is a non - negative admissible kernel if @xmath72 for all @xmath45 , and :    1 .
@xmath73 and is even . 2
there exist constants @xmath74 such that @xmath75 .
there exist constants @xmath76 such that 1 .
@xmath77 for all @xmath78 .
@xmath79 for all @xmath80 .
now , we are ready to state our one - dimensional theorem , which is proved in section [ sec : proof_main_th ] .
the theorem states that in the noise free - case , @xmath81 , a convex program recovers the delays and amplitudes exactly , for any rayleigh regularity parameter @xmath57 .
namely , the convolution system is invertible even without any sparsity prior .
additionally , in the presence of noise or model mismatch , the recovery error grows exponentially with @xmath57 and is proportional to the noise level .
[ th : main]consider the model ( [ eq : model1 ] ) for a non - negative admissible kernel @xmath0 as defined in definition [ def : kernel ] .
then , there exists @xmath35 such that if @xmath82 and @xmath83 the solution @xmath84 of the convex problem @xmath85 satisfies @xmath86 where @xmath87 and @xmath88    for sufficiently large @xmath41 and @xmath32 , the recovery error can be written as @xmath89 where @xmath90 is a constant that depends only on the kernel @xmath0 and @xmath57 .    in order to extend theorem [ th : main ] to the two - dimensional case , we present the equivalent of definitions [ def : rayleigh ] and [ def : kernel ] to two - dimensional signals . notice that the two - dimensional definition of rayleigh regularity is not a direct extension of definition [ def : rayleigh ] and is quite less intuitive . in order to prove theorems [ th : main ] and [ thm : main2 ] , we assume that the support of the signal could be presented as a union of @xmath57 non - intersecting subsets , which satisfy the separation conditions of ( [ eq:1dseparation ] ) and ( [ eq:2dseparation ] ) , respectively . in the one - dimensional case ,
this property is implied directly from definition [ def : rayleigh ] . however , this property is not guaranteed by the two - dimensional extension of definition [ def : rayleigh ] .
see figure [ fig : counter_exp ] for a simple counter - example .
therefore , in the two - dimensional case the rayleigh - regularity of a signal is defined as follows :    [ def:2dray]@xcite we say that the set @xmath91 is rayleigh - regular with parameters @xmath59 and write @xmath92 if it can be presented as a union of @xmath57 subsets @xmath93 that are not intersecting and satisfy the minimum separation constraint ( [ eq:2dseparation ] ) .
namely ,    * for all @xmath94 , @xmath95 , * for all @xmath96 , @xmath97 satisfies : for all square subsets @xmath98 of side length @xmath99 , @xmath100 .
this figure presents an example for a set of 8 points that can not be decomposed into 4 non - intersecting subsets that meet the separation condition as in ( [ eq:2dseparation ] ) , although each resolution cell contains at most 4 points .
consider a square resolution cell ( in @xmath101 sense ) of size @xmath102 .
note that indeed each resolution cell contains at most 4 points .
nonetheless , this set of points can not be described as 4 non - intersecting sets that satisfy the separation condition . specifically , the distance ( in @xmath103 norm ) of the black point is smaller than @xmath104 from the other 7 points , meaning it has to be in a separate subset from the others .
on the other hand , there is no triplet of points that comprises a legal subset .
therefore , the property of definition [ def:2dray ] is not a consequence of the two - dimensional version of definition [ def : rayleigh ] . ]
a two - dimensional non - negative admissible kernel is defined as follows :    [ def : kernel2d]we say that @xmath105 is a two - dimensional non - negative admissible kernel if @xmath106 for all @xmath107 and it has the following properties :    1 .
@xmath108 and @xmath109 2 .   :
there exist constants @xmath110 such that @xmath111 , for @xmath112 , where @xmath113 .
there exist constants @xmath114 such that 1 .
@xmath115 for all @xmath116 satisfying @xmath117 , and @xmath118 for all @xmath116 satisfying @xmath119 .
@xmath120 for all @xmath116 satisfying @xmath121 .    equipped with the appropriate definitions of rayleigh regularity and non - negative admissible kernel , we are ready to state our main theorem for the two - dimensional case .
the theorem is proved in section [ sec : proof_th2 ] .
[ thm : main2 ] consider the model ( [ eq : model2 ] ) for a non - negative two - dimensional admissible kernel @xmath105 as defined in definition [ def : kernel2d ] .
then , there exists @xmath35 such that if @xmath122 , the solution @xmath123 of the convex problem @xmath124 satisfies ( for sufficiently large @xmath32 and @xmath41 ) @xmath125 where @xmath126 is a constant which depends on the kernel @xmath21 and the rayleigh regularity @xmath57 .    to conclude this section , we summarize the contribution of this paper and compare it to the relevant previous works .
particularly , we stress the chief differences from @xcite which served as inspiration for this work .    *
this work deviates from @xcite in two important aspects .
first , our stability results is much stronger than those in @xcite .
particularly , our main results hold for signals with @xmath57 spikes within a resolution cell . in contrast , the main theorems of @xcite require signals with @xmath57 spikes within @xmath57 resolution cells .
second , our formulation is not restricted to kernels with finite bandwidth and , in this manner , can be seen as a generalization of @xcite .
this generalization is of particular interest as many kernels in practical applications are not band - limited . * in @xcite
, it is proven that robust recovery from general stream of pulses ( not necessarily non - negative ) is possible if the delays are not clustered . here
, we show that the separation is unnecessary in the positive case and can be replaced by the notion of raleigh regularity .
this notion quantifies the density of the signal s support .
* we derive strong stability guarantees compared to parametric methods , such as prony method , matrix pencil and music .
nevertheless , we heavily rely on the positiveness of signal and the density of the delays , whereas the parametric methods do not have these restrictions .
we also mention that several previous works suggested noise - free results for non - negative signals in similar settings , however they do not derive stability guarantees @xcite . in @xcite
it was proven that the necessary separation between the delays drops to zero for sufficiently low noise level .
the proof follows the outline of @xcite and borrows constructions from @xcite .
let @xmath84 be s solution of ( [ eq : cvx ] ) and set @xmath127 .
observe that by ( [ eq : cvx ] ) @xmath128 is finite since @xmath129 .
the proof relies on some fundamental results from @xcite ( particularly , see proposition 3.3 and lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 ) which are summarized by the following lemma :    [ lemma : q ] let @xmath0 be a non - negative admissible kernel as defined in definition [ def : kernel ] and suppose that @xmath130
. then , there exists a kernel - dependent separation constant @xmath35 ( see ( [ eq:1dseparation ] ) ) and a set of coefficients @xmath131 and @xmath132 such there exists an associated function of the form @xmath133 which satisfies : @xmath134 where @xmath135 and @xmath136 are the constants associated with @xmath0 .
furthermore , @xmath137    the non - negativity property , @xmath138 for all @xmath45 , does not appear in @xcite , however , it is a direct corollary of the non - negativity assumption that @xmath72 for all @xmath45 .
the interpolating function ( [ eq : q_form ] ) also satisfies the following property which will be needed in the proof :    [ claim : qh ] let @xmath84 be s solution of ( [ eq : cvx ] ) and set @xmath127 .
let @xmath139 be a union of @xmath57 non - intersecting sets obeying @xmath140 for all @xmath141 .
for each set @xmath142 , let @xmath143:=\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}\left(k / n\right)$ ] , @xmath43 , be an associated function , where @xmath144 is given in ( [ eq : q_form ] ) .
then , for any sequence @xmath145 we have @xmath146\right)^{\alpha_{i}}\mathbf{h}[k]\\ & \leq\left(c_{0}\left(1+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6\nu^{2}}\right)\right)^{r-1}\left(\frac{6\nu^{2}}{3\mathbf{g}\left(0\right)\nu^{2}-2\pi^{2}c_{0}}\right)^{r}\delta \\ & + c^{*}\nu^{-4}\left\vert \mathbf{h}\right\vert _ { 1 } , \end{split}\ ] ] for some constant @xmath147 that depends on the kernel @xmath0 .
we begin by two preliminary calculations .
first , we observe from ( [ eq : model1 ] ) and ( [ eq : cvx ] ) that @xmath148\mathbf{h}[k]\right| & \leq & \left\vert \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{g}\ast\hat{\mathbf{x}}\right\vert _ { 1 } \nonumber \\ & + & \left\vert \mathbf{g}\ast \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\right\vert _ { 1 } \nonumber\\ & \leq & 2\delta.\label{eq : delta}\end{aligned}\ ] ] additionally , we can estimate for all @xmath43 ( see section 3.4 in @xcite ) @xmath149 and hence with the properties of admissible kernel as defined in definition [ def : kernel ] we have for @xmath150 @xmath151\right| & \leq & c_{\ell}\sum_{k_{m}\in\mathcal{t}_{i}}\frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{k - k_{m}}{n\sigma}\right)^2}\nonumber \\ & \leq & 2c_{\ell}\left(1+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6\nu^{2}}\right).\label{eq : bound_g1h}\end{aligned}\ ] ] according to ( [ eq : q_form ] ) , the left - hand of ( [ eq : lemma3.4 ] ) can be explicitly written as : @xmath152\right)^{\alpha_{i}}\mathbf{h}[k ] \\ & = \sum_{k\in\mathbb{z}}\prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(\sum_{k_{m_{i}}\in\mathcal{t}_{i}}a_{m_{i}}\mathbf{g}\left[k - k_{m_{i}}\right]+b_{m_{i}}\mathbf{g}^{(1)}\left[k - k_{m_{i}}\right]\right)^{\alpha_{i}}\mathbf{h}[k].\label{eq : qh_explicit } \end{split}\ ] ] this expression can be decomposed into ( at most ) @xmath153 terms .
we commence by considering the first term of the expression with @xmath154 and @xmath155 for @xmath156 ( namely , the product of the shifts of @xmath0 ) . using ( [ eq : delta ] ) and ( [ eq : bound_g1h ] )
we get @xmath157\sum_{k_{m_{2}}\in\mathcal{t}_{2}}a_{m_{2}}\mathbf{g}\left[k - k_{m_{2}}\right]\mathbf{h}[k ] \\ & \leq & \left\vert \mathbf{a}\right\vert _ { \infty}^{2}\left|\sum_{_{k_{m_{1}}\in\mathcal{t}_{1}}}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{z}}\mathbf{g}\left[k - k_{m_{1}}\right]\mathbf{h}[k]\sum_{k_{m_{2}}\in\mathcal{t}_{2}}\mathbf{g}\left[k - k_{m_{2}}\right]\right|\\   & \leq & 2\left\vert \mathbf{a}\right\vert _ { \infty}^{2}c_{0}\left(1+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6\nu^{2}}\right)\sum_{n\in\mathbb{z}}\left|\sum_{k\in\mathbb{z}}\mathbf{g}\left[k - n\right]\mathbf{h}[k]\right|\\   & \leq & 4\left\vert \mathbf{a}\right\vert _ { \infty}^{2}c_{0}\left(1+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6\nu^{2}}\right)\delta.\end{aligned}\ ] ] from the same methodology and using ( [ eq : a ] ) , we conclude that for any sequence of coefficients @xmath145 we get @xmath158\right)\mathbf{h}[k ] \\ & \leq\left(c_{0}\left(1+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6\nu^{2}}\right)\right)^{r-1}\left(\frac{6\nu^{2}}{3\mathbf{g}\left(0\right)\nu^{2}-2\pi^{2}c_{0}}\right)^{r}\delta .
\end{split}\ ] ]    next , using ( [ eq : bound_g1h ] ) we observe that all other @xmath159 terms of ( [ eq : qh_explicit ] ) can be bounded by @xmath160 for some constant @xmath161 and @xmath162 , @xmath163 .
hence , we conclude by ( [ eq : a ] ) and ( [ eq : b ] ) that the summation of all these terms is bounded by @xmath164 for sufficiently large constants @xmath147 and @xmath41 . the constant @xmath147 depends only on the kernel @xmath0 .
this completes the proof .
consider @xmath165 and let us define the sets @xmath166<0\right\ } $ ] and respectively @xmath167\geq0\right\ } $ ] . throughout the proof , we use the notation @xmath168 and @xmath169 to denote some @xmath43 so that @xmath170 and @xmath171 , respectively .
observe that by definition , @xmath172 and thus @xmath173 .
the set @xmath174 can be presented as the union of @xmath57 non - intersecting subsets @xmath175 , where @xmath176 and @xmath177 .
therefore , for each subset @xmath178 there exists an associated function @xmath143=\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}\left(k / n\right)$ ] as given in lemma [ lemma : q ] .
the proof builds upon the following construction @xmath179:=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(1-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}[k]\right)-\rho,\label{eq : q}\ ] ] for some constant @xmath180 , to be defined later .
the function @xmath181 $ ] satisfies the following properties :    [ lem : q_prod]let @xmath182 be as in ( [ eq : q ] ) , let @xmath183 and let @xmath184 where @xmath87 .
then , we have @xmath185 & = & -\rho,\quad k_{m}\in\mathcal{n},\\ \mathbf{q}\left[k\right ] & \geq & \rho,\quad k\in\mathcal{n}^{c},\\ \mathbf{q}\left[k\right ] & \leq & 1,\quad k\in\mathbb{z}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    since @xmath186 by lemma [ lemma : q ] there exists for each subset @xmath178 an associated interpolating function @xmath187=\tilde{\mathbf{q}_{i}}(k / n)$ ] . consequently , for all
@xmath188 we obtain @xmath189&=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(1-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}\left[k_{m}\right]\right)-\rho \\ & = -\rho , \end{split}\ ] ] and for all @xmath169 we have @xmath190 & = & \prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(1-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}\left[k\right]\right)-\rho\\ & \geq & \left(\frac{\beta}{4\mathbf{g}(0)\gamma^{2}}\right)^{r}-\rho.\end{aligned}\ ] ] by setting @xmath191\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta}{4\mathbf{g}(0)\gamma^{2}}\right)^{r},\ ] ] we conclude the proof .
note that in order to guarantees @xmath192 , we require @xmath183 .
equipped with lemma [ lem : q_prod ] , we conclude that @xmath181 $ ] and @xmath193 $ ] have the same sign for all @xmath43 , and thus @xmath194\mathbf{h}[k]&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{z}}\vert \mathbf{q}[k]\vert \vert \mathbf{h}[k]\vert \\ & \geq\rho\left\vert\mathbf { h}\right\vert _ { 1}.\label{eq : low - bound } \end{split}\ ] ] to complete the proof , we need to bound the inner product @xmath195 from above . to this end , observe that @xmath196\right)=1+\boldsymbol{\kappa}_{r}[k],\label{eq:1-q}\ ] ] where @xmath197 & : = & \sum_{j=1}^{2^{r}-1}\prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}\left[k\right]\right)^{\alpha_{i}(j)},\label{eq : q}\end{aligned}\ ] ] for some coefficients @xmath198 . for instance , @xmath199=-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{1}\left[k\right]-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{2}\left[k\right]+\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{1}\left[k\right]\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_{2}\left[k\right].$ ] therefore , by ( [ eq : q ] ) and ( [ eq:1-q ] ) we get    @xmath200\right)-\rho,\mathbf{h}\right\rangle \label{eq : qh1}\\   & = & \left\langle \left(1-\rho\right)+\boldsymbol{\kappa}_{r},\mathbf{h}\right\rangle \nonumber \\   & = & \left(1-\rho\right)\sum_{k\in\mathbb{z}}\mathbf{h}[k]+\left\langle \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{r},\mathbf{h}\right\rangle .\nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ]    recall that by ( [ eq : cvx ] ) we have @xmath201 and therefore @xmath202+\mathbf{h}[k]\right|\\ & + \sum_{k\in\mathbb{z}\backslash\mbox{supp}(\mathbf{x})}\left|\mathbf{h}[k]\right| . \end{split}\ ] ] by definition @xmath193\geq0 $ ] for all @xmath169 and we use the triangle inequality to deduce @xmath203\\ & + & \sum_{k\in\mbox{supp}(\mathbf{x})\backslash\mathcal{n}}\left(\mathbf{x}[k]+\mathbf{h}[k]\right)+\sum_{k\in\mathcal{n}}\left|\mathbf{x}[k]+\mathbf{h}[k]\right|\\   & \geq & \left\vert \mathbf{x}\right\vert _ { 1}+\sum_{k\in\mathcal{n}^{c}}\mathbf{h}[k]-\sum_{k\in\mathcal{n}}\left|\mathbf{h}[k]\right|,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and thus we conclude @xmath204\leq0.\label{eq : nsp}\ ] ] so , from ( [ eq : q ] ) , ( [ eq : qh1 ] ) , ( [ eq : nsp ] ) and lemma [ claim : qh ] we conclude that @xmath205\right)^{\alpha_{i}(j)}\mathbf{h}[k]\right|\nonumber \\   & \leq & \left(2^{r}-1\right)\left(c_{0}\left(1+\frac{\pi^{2}}{6\nu^{2}}\right)\right)^{r-1}\nonumber\\ & \cdot & \left(\frac{6\nu^{2}}{3\mathbf{g}\left(0\right)\nu^{2}-2\pi^{2}c_{0}}\right)^{r}\delta \nonumber \\ & + & c^{*}\left(2^{r}-1\right)\nu^{-4}\left\vert \mathbf{h}\right\vert _ { 1}. \label{eq : upper - bound}\end{aligned}\ ] ] combining ( [ eq : upper - bound ] ) with ( [ eq : low - bound ] ) and ( [ eq : rho ] ) yields @xmath206 this completes the proof of theorem [ th : main ] .
the proof of theorem [ thm : main2 ] follows the methodology of the proof in section [ sec : proof_main_th ] .
we commence by stating the extension of lemma [ lemma : q ] to the two - dimensional case , based on results from @xcite :    [ lemma : q2 ] let @xmath105 be a non - negative two - dimensional admissible kernel as defined in definition [ def : kernel ] and suppose that @xmath207 .
then , there exists a kernel - dependent separation constant @xmath35 and a set of coefficients @xmath208 and @xmath209 such that there exist an associated function of the form @xmath210 which satisfies : @xmath211 for sufficiently small @xmath212 associated with the kernel @xmath105 , and some constants @xmath213 . for sufficiently large @xmath35 and constants
@xmath214 , we also have @xmath215    we present now the two - dimensional version of lemma [ claim : qh ] without a proof .
the proof relies on the same methodology as the one - dimensional case .
[ lem:3.4_2]let @xmath216 be a union of @xmath57 non - intersecting sets obeying @xmath217 for all @xmath141 .
for each set @xmath218 , let @xmath219:=\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_\mathbf{i,2}\left(\mathbf{k}/n\right)$ ] , @xmath220 , be an associated function , where @xmath221 is given in ( [ eq : q2_form ] ) .
then , for any sequence @xmath145 we have for sufficiently large @xmath41 , @xmath222\right)^{\alpha_{i}}\mathbf{h}[{k}]\leq\tilde{c}_{2}(\mathbf{g},r)\delta+c^{*}\nu^{-6}\left\vert \mathbf{h}\right\vert _ { 1},\label{eq : lemma3.4_2}\ ] ] for some constants @xmath147 and @xmath223 which depends on the kernel @xmath21 and the regularity parameter @xmath57 .
let @xmath220 .
let us define the sets @xmath224<0\right\ } $ ] and @xmath225\geq0\right\ } $ ] . throughout the proof
, we use the notation of @xmath226 and @xmath227 to denote all @xmath220 so that @xmath228 and @xmath229 , respectively . by definition , @xmath230 ( see definition [ def:2dray ] ) and it can be presented as the union of non - intersecting subsets @xmath231 where @xmath232 . therefore , for each subset @xmath233 there exists an associated function @xmath219=\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_\mathbf{i,2}\left(\mathbf{k}/n\right)$ ] given in lemma [ lemma : q2 ] . as in the one - dimensional case , the proof relies on the following construction @xmath234:=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(1-\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_\mathbf{i,2}[\mathbf{k}]\right)-\rho,\label{eq : q2}\ ] ] for some constant @xmath180 , to be defined later .
this function satisfies the following interpolation properties :    [ lem : q_prod2 ] suppose that @xmath235 where @xmath236 is given in lemma [ lemma : q2 ] .
let @xmath237 be as in ( [ eq : q2 ] ) and let @xmath238 then , @xmath239 & = & -\rho,\quad\mathbf{k}_{m}\in\mathcal{n}_{2},\\ \mathbf{q_{2}}\left[\mathbf{k}\right ] & \geq & \rho,\quad \mathbf{k}\in\mathcal{n}_{2}^{c},\\ \mathbf{q_{2}}\left[\mathbf{k}\right ] & \leq & 1,\quad\mathbf{k}\in\mathbb{z}^{2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    since @xmath240 by lemma [ lemma : q2 ] there exists for each subset @xmath233 an associated function @xmath241=\tilde{\mathbf{q}}_\mathbf{i,2}(\mathbf{k}/n)$ ] . consequently ,
for all @xmath242 we obtain @xmath243=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(1-\mathbf{q_{i,2}}\left[\mathbf{k}_{m}\right]\right)-\rho=-\rho.\ ] ] for @xmath244 we get for all @xmath227 @xmath245 & = & \prod_{i=1}^{r}\left(1-\mathbf{q_{i,2}}\left[\mathbf{k}\right]\right)-\rho\geq\left(\frac{c_{1}}{\left(n\sigma\right)^{2}}\right)^{r}-\rho.\end{aligned}\ ] ] by setting @xmath246\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{c_{1}}{\left(n\sigma\right)^{2}}\right)^{r},\ ] ] we conclude the proof .
the condition @xmath247 guarantees that @xmath192 .
once we constructed the function @xmath248 $ ] , the proof follows the one - dimensional case . by considering lemmas [ eq : lemma3.4_2 ] and [ lem : q_prod2 ] and using similar arguments to ( [ eq : low - bound ] ) and ( [ eq : upper - bound ] )
, we conclude @xmath249 using ( [ eq : rho2 ] ) we get for sufficiently large @xmath41 that @xmath250 for some constant @xmath251 which depends on the kernel @xmath252 and the rayleigh regularity @xmath57 .
we conducted numerical experiments to validate the theoretical results of this paper .
the simulated signals were generated in two steps .
first , random locations were sequentially added to the signals support in the interval @xmath253 $ ] with discretization step of 0.01 , while keeping a fixed regularity condition .
once the support was determined , the amplitudes were drawn randomly from an i.i.d normal distribution with standard deviation sd = 10 . for positive signals ,
the amplitudes are taken to be the absolute values of the normal variables .
the experiments were conducted with the cauchy kernel @xmath254 , @xmath255 .
we set the separation constant to be @xmath256 , which was evaluated in @xcite to be the minimal separation constant , guaranteeing the existence of interpolating polynomial as in lemma [ lemma : q ] .
figure [ fig : example ] presents an example for the estimation of the signal ( [ eq : x ] ) from ( [ eq : model1 ] ) with @xmath257 .
as can be seen , the solution of the convex problem ( [ eq : cvx ] ) detects the support of the signal with high precision in a noisy environment of @xmath258 db .
figure [ fig:2d ] presents an example for recovery of a two - dimensional signal from a stream of cauchy kernels with @xmath257 and @xmath259 .
example for the recovery of a signal of the form of ( [ eq : x ] ) from stream of cauchy kernels with @xmath255 , rayleigh regularity of @xmath257 , separation constant of @xmath256 and noise level of @xmath260 ( snr=27db ) . ]    an example for the recovery of a two - dimensional signal of the form ( [ eq : x2 ] ) from the measurements ( [ eq : model2 ] ) , with @xmath257 , @xmath261 and @xmath259 .
the figure presents merely the locations ( support ) of the original and the recovered signals . ]
figure [ fig : mean_err ] shows the localization error as a function of the noise level @xmath42 . to clarify , by localization error we mean the distance between the support of the original signal and the support of the recovered signal .
figure [ fig : positive - negative ] compares the localization error for positive signals and general real signals ( i.e. not necessarily positive ) from stream of cauchy pulses . for general signals
, we solved a standard @xmath29 minimization problem as in @xcite , which is the same problem as ( [ eq : cvx ] ) without the positivity constraint @xmath262 .
plainly , the localization error of positive signals is significantly smaller than the error of general signals .
figure [ fig : err_r ] shows that the error grows approximately linearly with the noise level @xmath42 and increases with @xmath57 .
in this paper , we have shown that a standard convex optimization program can robustly recover the sets of delays and positive amplitudes from a stream of pulses .
the recovery error is proportional to the noise level and grows exponentially with the density of signal s support , which is defined by the notion of rayleigh regularity .
the error also depends on the localization properties of the kernel .
in contrast to general stream of pulses model as discussed in @xcite , no separation is needed and the signal s support may be clustered .
it is of great interest to examine the theoretical results we have derived on real applications , such as detection and tracking tasks in single - molecule microscopy .
we have shown explicitly that our technique holds true for one and two dimensional signals .
we strongly believe that similar results hold for higher - dimension problems .
our results rely on the existence of interpolating functions which were constructed in a previous work @xcite .
extension of the results of @xcite to higher dimensions will imply immediately the extension of our results to higher dimensions as well .    in @xcite , it was shown that for general signals that satisfy the separation condition ( [ eq:1dseparation ] ) , the solution of a convex program results in a localization error of order @xmath263 .
namely , the support of the estimated signal is clustered around the support of the sought signal
. it would be interesting to examine whether such a phenomenon exists in the positive case as well .
the author is grateful to prof arie feuer and prof shai dekel for their comments and support and to veniamin morgenshtern for helpful discussions about @xcite .
r.  tur , y.  c. eldar , and z.  friedman , `` innovation rate sampling of pulse streams with application to ultrasound imaging , '' _ ieee transactions on signal processing _ , vol .
59 , no .  4 , pp .
18271842 , 2011 .
s.  deslauriers - gauthier and p.  marziliano , `` spherical finite rate of innovation theory for the recovery of fiber orientations , '' in _ 2012 annual international conference of the ieee engineering in medicine and biology society _ , pp .  22942297 , ieee , 2012 .
t.  a. klar , s.  jakobs , m.  dyba , a.  egner , and s.  w. hell , `` fluorescence microscopy with diffraction resolution barrier broken by stimulated emission , '' _ proceedings of the national academy of sciences _ , vol .
97 , no .  15 , pp .  82068210 , 2000 .
e.  betzig , g.  h. patterson , r.  sougrat , o.  w. lindwasser , s.  olenych , j.  s. bonifacino , m.  w. davidson , j.  lippincott - schwartz , and h.  f. hess , `` imaging intracellular fluorescent proteins at nanometer resolution , '' _ science _ , vol .
313 , no .  5793 , pp .
16421645 , 2006 .
i.  bronstein , y.  israel , e.  kepten , s.  mai , y.  shav - tal , e.  barkai , and y.  garini , `` transient anomalous diffusion of telomeres in the nucleus of mammalian cells , '' _ physical review letters _
103 , no .  1 , p.  018102
, 2009 .
tournier , f.  calamante , d.  g. gadian , and a.  connelly , `` direct estimation of the fiber orientation density function from diffusion - weighted mri data using spherical deconvolution , '' _ neuroimage _ , vol .
23 , no .  3 , pp .
11761185 , 2004 .
y.  hua and t.  k. sarkar , `` matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped / undamped sinusoids in noise , '' _ ieee transactions on acoustics , speech , and signal processing _
38 , no .  5 , pp .
814824 , 1990 .
r.  roy and t.  kailath , `` esprit - estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques , '' _ ieee transactions on acoustics , speech , and signal processing _ , vol .
37 , no .  7 , pp .  984995 , 1989 .
a.  moitra , `` super - resolution , extremal functions and the condition number of vandermonde matrices , '' in _ proceedings of the forty - seventh annual acm on symposium on theory of computing _ , pp .  821830 , acm , 2015 .
t.  bendory , a.  bar - zion , d.  adam , s.  dekel , and a.  feuer , `` stable support recovery of stream of pulses with application to ultrasound imaging , '' _ ieee transactions on signal processing _ , vol .
64 , no .
14 , pp .  37503759 , 2016 .
j .- j . fuchs , `` sparsity and uniqueness for some specific under - determined linear systems , '' in _ proceedings.(icassp05 ) .
ieee international conference on acoustics , speech , and signal processing , 2005 .
_ , vol .  5 , pp .
v729 , ieee , 2005 .
g.  schiebinger , e.  robeva , and b.  recht , `` superresolution without separation , '' in _ computational advances in multi - sensor adaptive processing ( camsap ) , 2015 ieee 6th international workshop on _ , pp .  4548 , ieee , 2015 .