our technology is based on various electromagnetic phenomena . for designing electronics devices , the maxwell s equation is therefore of essential importance .
the mathematical structure of the electromagnetic field is governed by a u(1 ) gauge symmetry , i.e. , an invariance of physical laws under phase transformations .
the gauge symmetry is equivalent to the conservation of the electric charge , and was established when a symmetry breaking of unified force occured immediately after the big bang . the beautiful mathematical structure of charge electromagnetism was therefore determined when our universe started , and
there is no way to modify its laws .
interestingly , charge electromagnetism is not the only electromagnetism allowed in the nature .
in fact , electromagnetism arises whenever there is a u(1 ) gauge symmetry associated with conservation of some effective charge . in solids ,
there are several systems which have the u(1 ) gauge symmetry as a good approximation .
solids could thus display several types of effective electromagnetic fields .
a typical example is a ferromagnetic metal . in ferromagnetic metals ,
conduction electron spin ( mostly @xmath0 electron ) is coupled to the magnetization ( or localized spins of @xmath1 electrons ) by an interaction called the @xmath2 interaction , which tends to align the electron spin parallel ( or anti - parallel ) to the localized spin .
this interaction is strong in most 3@xmath1 ferromagnetic metals , and as a result , conduction electron s spin originally consisting of three components , reduces to a single component along the localized spin direction .
the remaining component is invariant under a phase transformation , i.e. , has a u(1 ) gauge symmetry just like the electric charge does .
a spin electromagnetic field thus emerges that couples to conduction electron s spin .
interaction with magnetization as it moves in the presence of a magnetization texture , resulting in a spin gauge field .
magnetization texture is therefore equivalent to an effective electromagnetic field for conduction electron spin . ]
the subject of the present paper is this spin electromagnetic field .
spin electromagnetic field drives electron s spin , and thus plays essential roles in spintronics .
there is a gauge field for the spin electromagnetic field , a spin gauge field , which couples to spin current of the conduction electron .
the gauge coupling describes the effects of spin current on the localized spin dynamics .
as we shall see , when a spin - polarized electric current is applied , the adiabatic spin gauge field leads to spin - transfer torque and moves the magnetization structure ( sec .
[ secmagdynamics ] ) .
the world of spin electromagnetic field is richer than that of electric charge , since the electron s spin in solids is under influence of various interactions such as spin - orbit interaction .
we shall show that even magnetic monopoles can emerge ( sec . [ sec : adiabatic ] )    a spin electromagnetic field was first discussed in the context of a voltage generated by a canting of a driven domain wall by l. berger @xcite , and mathematically rigorous formulation was given by g. volovik @xcite .
the idea of effective gauge field was shown to be extended to the cases with spin relaxation @xcite , and rashba interaction @xcite .
some of the phenomena discussed in this paper overlaps those in the paper by r. raimondi in this lecture series , studied base on the boltzmann equation approach @xcite .    ]
let us start with a brief introduction of ferromagnetic metals ( fig .
[ figfm ] ) .
ferromagnets have magnetization , namely , an ensemble of localized spins . denoting the localized spin as @xmath3 ,
the magnetization is @xmath4 , where @xmath5 and @xmath6 are gyromagnetic ratio and lattice constant , respectively . as the electron has negative charge , the localized spin and magnetization points opposite direction . in @xmath7 transition metals ,
localized spins are aligned spins of @xmath7 electrons .
ferromagnetic metals have finite conductivity , indicating that there are conduction electrons , mainly @xmath8 electrons .
the conduction electrons and @xmath1 electrons are coupled via @xmath2 mixing . as a result
, there arises an exchange interaction between conduction electron spin , @xmath9 , and localized spin , which reads @xmath10 where @xmath11 represents the strength . in this article , the localized spin is treated as classical variable , neglecting the conduction of @xmath1 electrons .
the dynamics of localized spin is described by the landau - lifshiz - gilbert ( llg ) equation , @xmath12 where @xmath13 is a unit vector representing the direction of localized spin , @xmath14 is the total magnetic field acting on the spin .
the last term of the right hand side represents the relaxation ( damping ) of localized spin , called the gilbert damping effect and @xmath15 is the gilbert damping constant .
the gilbert damping constant in most metallic ferromagnets are of the order of @xmath16 .
we shall now start studying phenomena arising from the exchange interaction , eq .
( [ hsd ] ) , between localized spin and conduction electron .
, title="fig : " ] , title="fig : " ]
we consider a ferromagnetic domain wall , which is a structure where localized spins ( or magnetization ) rotate spatially ( fig .
[ figdwelec ] ) .
its thickness , @xmath17 , in typical ferromagnets is @xmath18 nm . let us consider here what happens when a conduction electron goes through a domain wall .
the wall is a macroscopic object for electrons , since thickness is much larger than the typical length scale of electron , the fermi wavelength , @xmath19 , which is atomic scale in metals .
the electron is interacting with localized spin via the @xmath2 exchange coupling , eq .
( [ hsd ] ) .
we consider the case of positive @xmath11 , but the sign does not change the scenario .
the @xmath2 interaction tends to align parallel the localized spin and conduction electron spin . if localized spin is spatially uniform , therefore
, the conduction electron is also uniformly polarized , and electron transport and magnetism are somewhat decoupled .
interesting effects arise if the localized spins are spatially varying like the case of a domain wall .
we choose the @xmath20 axis along the direction localized spins change . the lowest energy direction ( magnetic easy axis ) for localized spins
is chosen as along @xmath20 axis .
( the mutual direction between the localized spin and direction of spin change is irrelevant in the case without spin - orbit interaction . )
the wall in this case is with localized spins inside the wall changing within the plane of localized spin , and such wall is called the nel wall . at @xmath21
the localized spin is @xmath22 , and is @xmath23 at @xmath24 , and those states are represented a @xmath25 and @xmath26 , respectively . for @xmath27 electron ,
the potential in the left regime is low because of @xmath2 exchange interaction , while that in the right region is high ( dotted lines in fig .
[ figdwpotentialenergy ] ) .     for conduction electron with spin @xmath25 and @xmath26 as a result of @xmath2 exchange interaction .
dotted lines are the cases neglecting spin flip inside the wall , while solid lines are with spin flip .
[ figdwpotentialenergy ] ]    that is , the localized spin structure due to a domain wall acts as a spatially varying magnetic field , resulting in potential barriers , @xmath28 and @xmath29 . considering the domain wall centered at @xmath30
having profile of @xmath31 conduction electron s schrdinger equation with energy @xmath32 reads @xmath33\psi = e\psi ,   \label{elecseqindw}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath34 begin the two - component wave function .
if the spin direction of the conduction electron is fixed along the @xmath20 axis , the potential barrier represetned by the term proportional to @xmath35 leads to reflection of electron , but in reality , the electron spin can rotate inside the wall as a result of the term proportional to @xmath36 in eq .
( [ elecseqindw ] ) .
the mixing of @xmath27 and @xmath37 electron leads to the smooth potential barrier plotted as solid lines in fig .
[ figdwpotentialenergy ] .
let us consider an incident @xmath27 electron from the left .
if the electron is slow , the electron spin can keep the lowest energy state by gradually rotating its direction inside the wall .
this is the adiabatic limit .
as there is no potential barrier for the electron in this limit , no reflection arises from the domain wall , resulting in a vanishing resistance ( fig .
[ figdwelec](a ) ) in contrast , if the electron is fast , the electron spin can not follow the rotation of the localized spin , resulting in a reflection and finite resistance ( fig . [ figdwelec](b ) ) .
the condition for slow and fast is determined by the relation between the time for the electron to pass the wall and the time for electron spin rotation .
the former is @xmath38 for electron with fermi velocity @xmath39 ( spin - dependence of the fermi wave vector is neglected and @xmath40 is the electron mass ) .
the latter time is @xmath41 , as the electron spin is rotated by the @xmath2 exchange interaction in the wall .
therefore , if @xmath42 is satisfied , the electron is in the adiabatic limit @xcite .
the condition of adiabatic limit here is the case of clean metal ( long mean free path ) ; in dirty metals , it is modified @xcite .
the transmission of electron through a domain wall was calculated by g. g. cabrera and l. m. falicov @xcite , and its physical aspects were discussed by l. berger @xcite .
linear response formulation and scattering approach were presented in refs .
the adiabaticity condition was discussed by x. waintal and m. viret@xcite .
as we discussed above , in the adiabatic limit , the electron spin gets rotated after passing through the wall ( fig .
[ figdwelec](a ) ) .
the change of spin angular momentum , @xmath43 , must be absorbed by the localized spins .
( angular momentum dissipation as a result of spin relaxation is slow compared to the exchange of the angular momentum via the @xmath2 exchange interaction . ) to absorb the spin change of @xmath44 , the domain wall must shift to the right , resulting in an increase of the spins @xmath27 .
we consider for simplicity the case of cubic lattice with lattice constant @xmath6 .
the distance of the wall shift @xmath45 necessary to absorb the electron s spin angular momentum of @xmath44 is then @xmath46a$ ] ( fig .
[ figdwdisplacement ] ) ) .
if we apply a spin - polarized current through the wall with the density @xmath47 ( spin current density is defined to have the same unit of a / m@xmath48 as the electric current density . )
the rate of the angular momentum change of the conduction electron per unit time and area is @xmath49 .
as the number of the localized spins in the unit area is @xmath50 , the wall must keep moving a distance of @xmath51 per unit time .
namely , when a spin current density is applied , the wall moves with the speed of @xmath52 this effect was pointed out by l. berger @xcite in 1986 , and is now called the spin - transfer effect after the papers by j. slonczewski @xcite .
results in a change of the spin of the localized spins @xmath53 .
the angular momentum change is therefore @xmath44 if @xmath54 . [ figdwdisplacement ] ]    from the above considerations in the adiabatic limit , we have found that a domain wall is driven by spin - polarized current , while the electrons do not get reflected and no resistance arises from the wall .
these two facts naively seem inconsistent , but are direct consequence of the fact that a domain wall is a composite structure having both linear momentum and angular momentum .
the adiabatic limit is the limit where angular momentum is transfered between the electron and the wall , while no linear momentum is transfered .
relates the two spin configurations @xmath55 and @xmath56 as @xmath57 .
right : the overlap of the wave functions at sites @xmath58 and @xmath59 is @xmath60 .
[ figu],title="fig:",scaledwidth=27.0% ]   relates the two spin configurations @xmath55 and @xmath56 as @xmath57 .
right : the overlap of the wave functions at sites @xmath58 and @xmath59 is @xmath60 .
[ figu],title="fig:",scaledwidth=27.0% ]
transport of conduction electrons in the adiabatic ( strong @xmath2 ) limit is theoretically studied by calculating the quantum mechanical phase attached to the wave function of electron spin .
we here consider a conduction electron hopping from a site @xmath58 to a neighboring site at @xmath61 ( @xmath62 is a vector connecting neighboring sites)(fig .
[ figu ] ) .
the localized spin direction at those sites are @xmath63 and @xmath64 , respectively , and the electron s wave function at the two sites are @xmath65 , @xmath66 and @xmath67 , @xmath68 are the polar angle of @xmath69 and @xmath70 , respectively ( fig . [ figu ] ) .
the wave functions are concisely written by use of matrices , @xmath71 and @xmath72 , which rotates the spin state @xmath55 to @xmath56 ( fig . [ figu ] ) , as @xmath73 and @xmath74 .
the rotation matrix is given by @xcite ( neglecting irrelevant phase factors ) @xmath75 the overlap of the electron wave functions at the two sites is thus @xmath76 .
when localized spin texture is slowly varying , we can expand the matrix product with respect to @xmath62 as @xmath77 to obtain @xmath78 where @xmath79 since @xmath80 , @xmath81 is real .
a vector @xmath82 here plays a role of a gauge field , similarly to that of the electromagnetism , and it is called ( adiabatic ) spin gauge field . by use of eq .
( [ udef ] ) , this gauge field reads ( the factor of @xmath83 represents the magnitude of electron spin ) @xmath84    for a general path @xmath85 , the phase is written as an integral along @xmath85 as @xmath86 existence of path - dependent phase means that there is an effective magnetic field , @xmath87 , as seen by rewriting the integral over a closed path by use of the stokes theorem as @xmath88 where @xmath89 represents the curvature or effective magnetic field .
this phase @xmath81 , arising from strong @xmath2 interaction , couples to electron spin , and is called the spin berry s phase .
time - derivative of phase is equivalent to a voltage , and thus we have effective electric field defined by @xmath90 where @xmath91 ( for a gauge invariant expression of @xmath92 , we need to include the time component of the gauge field , @xmath93 @xcite . ) in terms of vector @xmath94 the effective fields read @xmath95    , of a hedgehog monopole having a monopole charge of @xmath96 and the one with @xmath97 . at the center , @xmath69 has a singularity and this gives rise to a finite monopole charge . , title="fig:",scaledwidth=30.0% ] , of a hedgehog monopole having a monopole charge of @xmath96 and the one with @xmath97 . at the center
, @xmath69 has a singularity and this gives rise to a finite monopole charge .
, title="fig:",scaledwidth=30.0% ]    these two fields couple to the electron spin and are called spin electromagnetic fields ( @xmath82 is spin gauge field ) .
they satisfy the faraday s law , @xmath98 as a trivial result of their definitions . defining the spin magnetic charge as @xmath99
we see that @xmath100 as a local identity , since spin vector with fixed length has only two independent variables , and therefore @xmath101 .
however , there is a possibility that the volume integral , @xmath102 , is finite ; in fact , using the gauss s law we can write ( @xmath103 represents a surface integral ) @xmath104 and it follows that @xmath105integer since @xmath106 is a winding number , an integer , of a mapping from a sphere in the coordinate space to a sphere in spin space .
if the mapping is topologically non - trivial as a result of a singularity , the monopole charge is finite .
typical nontrivial structures of @xmath94 are shown in fig .
[ fighh ] . the singular structure with a single monopole charge
is called the hedgehog monopole .
the faraday s law similarly reads @xmath107 , which vanishes locally but is finite when integrated , indicating that topological monopole current @xmath108 exists .
the other two maxwell s equations describing @xmath109 and @xmath110 are derived by evaluating the induced spin density and spin current based on linear response theory @xcite .     and
spin magnetic field @xmath111 act oppositely for electrons with opposite spin , and thus are useful for generation of spin current .
[ figesbs],title="fig : " ]   and spin magnetic field @xmath111 act oppositely for electrons with opposite spin , and thus are useful for generation of spin current .
[ figesbs],title="fig : " ]
the spin electromagnetic fields are real fields detectable in transport measurements . they couples to the spin polarization of the electrons ( fig . [ figesbs ] ) , and because spin density and spin current in ferromagnetic metals is always accompanied with electric charge and current , respectively , the effects of the spin magnetic fields are observable in electric measurements .
the electric component @xmath92 is directly observable as a voltage generation from magnetization dynamics , and the voltage signals of @xmath112v order have been observed for the motion of domain walls and vortices @xcite .
the spin magnetic field causes an anomalous hall effect of spin , i.e. , the spin hall effect called the topological hall effect .
the spin electric field arises if magnetization structure carrying spin magnetic field becomes dynamical due to the lorentz force from @xmath87 according to @xmath113 , where @xmath114 denotes the electron spin s velocity . the topological hall effect due to skyrmion lattice turned out to induce hall resistivity of 4n@xmath115 cm @xcite .
although those signals are not large , existence of spin electromagnetic fields is thus confirmed experimentally .
it was recently shown theoretically that spin magnetic field couples to helicity of circularly polarized light ( topological inverse faraday effect ) @xcite , and an optical detection is thus possible .
as discussed in the previous section , the spin gauge field are measured by transport experiments . here
we study the opposite effect , the effects of spin gauge field on magnetization dynamics when spin current is applied .
the spin gauge field is expected to couple to the spin current of the electron , @xmath116 , via the minimal coupling , @xmath117   , \label{has}\ ] ] where @xmath118 is the electron density , and @xmath119 is the electron spin density , @xmath120 ( @xmath121 ) representing the density of electron with spin @xmath122 .
the field @xmath123 is the time component of spin gauge field ( eq .
( [ asdef ] ) with spatial derivative replaced by time derivative ) .
( for rigorous derivation of the coupling , see eqs .
( [ lezexpression2])([gaugeh ] ) . ) as the spin gauge field is written in terms of localized spin variables , @xmath124 and @xmath66 , as a result of eq .
( [ asdef ] ) , this interaction describes how the spin current and electron density affects the magnetization dynamics .
here we study the adiabatic limit , where the contribution second order in @xmath82 ( the second term of the right hand side of eq .
( [ has ] ) is neglected . including the gauge interaction , the lagrangian for the localized spin reads @xmath125 -h_s , \label{ls1 }   \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath126 is the hamiltonian .
we see that the magnitude of localized spin is modified to be the effective one @xmath127 including the spin polarization of the conduction electron . writing the gauge field terms explicitly , we have @xmath128 -h_s , % -h_{\rm na }   \label{lsjstot}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath129
. the velocity @xmath130 here agrees with the phenomenological one , eq .
( [ vst ] ) , if electron spin polarization is neglected ( i.e. , if @xmath131 ) . in the adiabatic limit , therefore , the time - derivative of the localized spin in the equation of motion is replaced by the galilean invariant form with a moving velocity of @xmath130 when a spin current is present .
the equation of motion derived from the lagrangian ( [ lsjstot ] ) reads @xmath132 where @xmath133 is the effective magnetic field due to @xmath126 . from eq .
( [ llmoving ] ) , it is obvious that the magnetization structure flows with velocity @xmath130 , and this effect is in fact the spin - transfer effect discussed phenomenologically in sec . [ secstt ] .
it should be noted that the effect is mathematically represented by a simple gauge interaction of eq .
( [ ls1 ] ) .
the equation of motion ( [ llmoving ] ) is the landau - lifshiz - gilbert ( llg ) equation including adiabatic spin - transfer effect .
it was theoretically demonstrated that the spin - transfer torque induces a red shift of spin wave , resulting in instability of uniform ferromagnetic state under spin - polarized current @xcite .    in reality
, there is nonadiabatic contribution described by spin - flip interactions .
such contribution leads to a mixing of the electron spins resulting in a scattering of the conduction electron and a finite resistance due to the magnetization structure @xcite .
this scattering gives rise to a force on the magnetization structure as a counter action @xcite .
as we have seen , the concept of adiabatic spin gauge field is useful to give a unified description of both electron transport properties in the presence of magnetization structure and the magnetization dynamics in the presence of spin - polarized current .
so far we discussed that an effective spin gauge field emerges by looking into the quantum mechanical phase factor attached to conduction electron in the presence of magnetization structures .
existence of effective gauge field is straightforwardly seen in field - theoretic description .
a field - theoretical description is based on the lagrangian of the system , @xmath134 where @xmath135 is the field hamiltonian . here
@xmath136 describes the free electron part in terms of field operators for conduction electron , @xmath137 and @xmath138 , where @xmath121 denotes spin .
the @xmath2 exchange interaction is represented by @xmath139 we are interested in the case where @xmath140 changes in space and time slowly compared to the electron s momentum and energy scales . how the electron feels when flowing through such slowly varying structure is described by introducing a rotating frame where the @xmath2 exchange interaction is locally diagonalized . in sec .
[ sec : adiabatic ] , we introduced a unitary matrix @xmath141 , and this matrix is used here to introduce a new electron operator as @xmath142 the new operator @xmath143 describes the low energy dynamics for the case of strong @xmath2 exchange interaction .
in fact , the @xmath2 exchange interaction for this electron is diagonalized to be @xmath144 where @xmath145 .
instead , the kinetic term for the new electron is modified , because derivative of the electron field is modified as @xmath146 where @xmath147 here @xmath148 is a @xmath149 matrix , whose componets are represented by using pauli matrices as @xmath150 equation ( [ covariantderivative ] ) indicates that the new electron field @xmath143 is interacting with an effective gauge field , @xmath148 .
this gauge field has three components , is non - commutative and is called the su(2 ) gauge field .
the three components explicitly read @xmath151 due to eq .
( [ covariantderivative ] ) , the kinetic term @xmath152 is written in terms of @xmath143 electron as @xmath153 [ ( \nabla+ i\acals ) \ahat].\ ] ] similarly , time - component of the gauge field @xmath154 arises from the time - derivative term ( @xmath155 ) of the lagrangian ( [ lhat ] ) .
the lagrangian in terms of @xmath143 electron therefore reads @xmath156 . \label{lezexpression1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] if we introduce electron density operator , @xmath157 , and operators for spin dnesity and spin current density as @xmath158 , \end{aligned}\ ] ] it reads @xmath159 .
\label{lezexpression2}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in the case of @xmath160 ( large @xmath11 ) , the electron with spin @xmath161 has high energy because of strong spin splitting , eq .
( [ hsddiag ] ) , and is neglected . in this case
, only the @xmath20 component of the gauge field , @xmath162 , survives .
this component is thus essentially a u(1 ) gauge field , which coincides with the u(1 ) gauge field we have obtained from the argument of electron s phase factor , namely , @xmath163 .
the total hamiltonian in the limit of large @xmath164 therefore reduces to the one for a charged particle in the presence of a u(1 ) gauge field @xmath82 ; @xmath165 [ ( \nabla+ i\asv ) \ahat_\uparrow ]       -\frac{j_{sd}s}{2 } \ahat_\uparrow^\dagger \ahat_\uparrow \rt ] .
\label{gaugeh}\ ] ] the field - theoretic method present here is highly useful , as it leads to a conclusion of the existence of an effective gauge field for spin simply by carrying out a unitary transformation to diagonalize strong @xmath2 exchange interaction .
in reality , there is a deviation from the adiabatic limit we have considered so far .
one origin is the fact that the magnetization structure is not in the slowly varying limit , but has a finite length scale of spatial modulation .
this effect , we call the non adiabaticity , leads to reflection of conduction electron by magnetization structures as in fig .
[ figdwelec](b ) , resulting in a force on the magnetization structure when an electric current is applied @xcite . in terms of torque , the effect of the force due to reflection is represented by a non - local torque , as it arises from finite momentum transfer @xcite .
another effect we need to take into account is the relaxation ( damping ) of spin schematically shown in the fig .
[ fignonadiabatic ] . in metallic ferromagnets ,
the damping mostly arises from the spin - orbit interaction , as seen from the fact that the gilbert damping parameter @xmath15 and the @xmath166 value has a correlation of @xmath167 as shown in ref .
spin relaxation generates a torque perpendicular to the motion of the spin , resulting in a canting of the precession axis .
similarly , when a spin current @xmath168 is applied , the spin relaxation thus was argued to induce a torque perpendicular to the spin - transfer torque , i.e. , @xmath169 where @xmath170 is a coefficient representing the effect of spin relaxation @xcite .    ]
those effects of non adiabaticity and spin relaxation can be calculated from a microscopic viewpoint @xcite .
let us go back to the llg equation for localized spin interacting with conduction electron spin via the @xmath2 exchange interaction .
the total hamiltonian is @xmath171 , where @xmath126 and @xmath172 are the hamiltonian for localized spin and conduction electron , respectively .
the equation of motion for localized spin is given by @xmath173 where @xmath174 and @xmath175 are the effective magnetic field arising from the localized spin and conduction electron , respectively .
the field @xmath176 is represented by the expectation value of electron spin density , @xmath177 , and all the effects from the conduction electron is included in this field ; equation ( [ llgfromh ] ) is exact if @xmath177 is evaluated exactly .
field theoretic approach is suitable for a systematic evaluation of the electron spin density .
we move to a rotated frame where the electron spin is described choosing the local @xmath20 axis along the localized spin . in the case
we are interested , namely , when the effect of non adiabaticity and damping are weak , these effects are treated perturbatively .
the spin density in the laboratory frame is written in terms of the spin in the rotated frame @xmath178 as @xmath179 , where @xmath180 is a rotation matrix , @xmath181 being the vector which define the unitary rotation . the perpendicular components ( denoted by @xmath182 ) of electron spin density in the rotated frame
are calculated as @xcite @xmath183 the effect of spin relaxation is included in @xmath184 and @xmath185 , both proportional to the spin relaxation time , @xmath186 @xcite .
the first term of eq .
( [ serotresult ] ) represents the renormalization of the localized spin as a result of electron spin polarization and the second term , induced in the presence of applied spin current , describes the adiabatic spin - transfer torque . using the identity @xmath187
we see that eq .
( [ serotresult ] ) leads to @xmath188     + \gamma \bv_{s}\times \nv , \label{llgfromh2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is the llg equation taking into account the torque due to electrons . here
@xmath189 and @xmath190 , neglecting other origins for gilbert damping and nonadiabatic torque .
let us briefly discuss dynamics of a domain wall based on the llg equation ( [ llgfromh2 ] ) including the current - induced torques .
we consider an one - dimensional and rigid wall , neglecting deformation . for a domain wall to be created
, the system must have an easy axis magnetic anisotropy energy .
we also include the hard - axis anisotropy energy , which turns out to govern the domain wall motion .
choosing the easy and the hard axises along the @xmath20 and the @xmath191 directions , respectively , the anisotropy energy is represented by the hamiltonian @xmath192,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath193 and @xmath194 are the easy- and hard - axis anisotropy energies ( both are positive ) .
we need to take into account of course the exchange coupling , which is essential for ferromagnetism , which in the continuum expression reads @xmath195 the domain wall solution obtained by minimizing @xmath196 and @xmath197 is eq .
( [ dwsolrest ] ) with @xmath198 . considering a rigid wall
, we assume that @xmath199 .
the low energy dynamics of the wall is then described by two variables ( called the collective coordinates ) , the center coordinate of the wall , @xmath200 , and the angle @xmath201 out - of the easy plane @xcite .
the wall profile including the collective coordinates is @xmath202 the equation of motion for domain wall is obtained by putting the wall profile ( [ dwsol ] ) in eq .
( [ llgfromh2 ] ) and integrating over spatial coordinate as @xmath203 where @xmath204 is spin polarization of the current , and both @xmath205 and @xmath206 have dimension of velocity .
when @xmath207 , the wall velocity when a constant @xmath208 is applied is easily obtained as @xcite @xmath209 and @xmath210 is the intrinsic threshold current density @xcite .
namely , the wall can not move if the applied current is lower than the threshold value .
this is because the torque supplied by the current is totally absorbed by the wall by tilting the out of plane angle to be @xmath211 when the current is weak ( @xmath212 ) and thus the wall can not move .
this effect is called the intrinsic pinning effect @xcite . for larger current density ,
the torque carried by the current induces an oscillation of the angle similar to the walker s breakdown in an applied magnetic field , and the wall speed also becomes an oscillating function of time .    when nonadiabaticity parameter @xmath170 is finite , the behavior changes greatly and intrinsic pinning effect is removed and the wall can move with infinitesimal applied current as long as there is no extrinsic pinning .
in fact , when the applied current density is @xmath213 , where @xmath214 the solution of eq .
( [ eqs ] ) is an oscillating function given by @xcite @xmath215 where @xmath216 the time - average of the wall speed is @xmath217 for current density satisfying @xmath218 , the oscillation in eq .
( [ dwvelocity1 ] ) is replaced by an exponential decay in time , and the wall velocity reaches a terminal value of @xmath219 the angle of the wall also reaches a terminal value determined by @xmath220 the averaged wall speed ( eq . ( [ averagewallvelocity ] ) ) is plotted in fig .
[ figvj ] .
as function of applied spin - polarized current @xmath221 for @xmath222 .
intrinsic pinning threshold @xmath223 exists only for @xmath224 . the current density where derivative of @xmath225 is discontinuous corresponds to @xmath226 .
[ figvj ] ]    the intrinsic pinning is a unique feature of current - driven domain wall , as the wall can not move even in the absence of pinning center . in the unit of a / m@xmath48 , the intrinsic pinning threshold is @xmath227 for device applications , this threshold needs to be lowered by reducing the hard - axis anisotropy and wall width @xcite . at the same time , the intrinsic pinning is promising for stable device operations .
in fact , in the intrinsic pinning regime , the threshold current and dynamics is insensitive to extrinsic pinning and external magnetic field@xcite , as was confirmed experimentally @xcite .
this is due to the fact that the wall dynamics in the intrinsic pinning regime is governed by a torque ( right hand side of the second equation of eq .
( [ eqs ] ) ) , which governs the wall velocity @xmath228 , while pinning and magnetic field induce force , which governs @xmath229 ; the forces due to sample irregularity therefore does not modify the motion induced by a torque in the intrinsic pinning regime . experimentally , intrinsic pinning is observed in perpendicularly magnetized materials @xcite , perhaps due to relatively low intrinsic pinning threshold , while materials with in - plane magnetization mostly are in the extrinsic pinning regime governed by the nonadiabatic parameter @xmath170 and extrinsic pinning . in this regime ,
the threshold current of the wall motion is given by @xcite @xmath230 where @xmath231 represents strength of extrinsic pinning potential like those generated by geometrical notches and defects .
control of nonadiabaticity parameter is therefore expected to be useful for driving domain walls at low current density
.    of recent interest from the viewpoint of low current operation is to use multilayer structures .
for instance , heavy metal layers turned out to lower the threshold current by exerting a torque as a result of spin hall effect @xcite , and synthetic antiferromagnets turned out to be suitable for fast domain wall motion at low current @xcite .
physics tends to focus on infinite systems or bulk system approximated as infinite , as one of the most important objective of physics is to search for beautiful general law supported by symmetries . in the condensed matter physics today , studying such beautiful systems seems to be insufficient anymore .
this is because demands to understand physics of interfaces and surfaces has been increasing rapidly as present devices are in nanoscales to meet the needs for fast processing of huge data .
systems with lower symmetry are therefore important subjects of material science today .
surfaces and interfaces have no inversion symmetry , and this leads to emergence of an antisymmetric exchange interaction ( dzyaloshinskii - moriya interaction ) @xcite in magnetism . as for electrons ,
broken inversion symmetry leads to a peculiar spin - orbit interaction , called the rashba interaction @xcite , whose hamiltonian is @xmath232 where @xmath233 is the vector of pauli matrices and @xmath234 is a vector representing the strength and direction of the interaction .
the form of the interaction is the one derived directly from the dirac equation as a relativistic interaction , but the magnitude can be strongly enhanced in solids having heavy elements compared to the vacuum case .    as is obvious from the form of the hamiltonian , the rashba interaction induces electromagnetic cross correlation effects where a magnetization and an electric current are induced by external electric and magnetic field , @xmath235 and @xmath14 , respectively , like represented as @xmath236 where @xmath237 and @xmath238 are coefficients , which generally depend on frequency .
the emergence of spin accumulation from the applied electric field , mentioned in ref .
@xcite , was studied by edelstein @xcite in detail , and the effect is sometimes called edelstein effect .
the generation of electric current by magnetic field or magnetization , called the inverse edelstein effect @xcite , was recently observed in multilayer of ag , bi and a ferromagnet @xcite .
equation ( [ rashbah ] ) indicates that when a current density @xmath239 is applied , the conduction electron has average momentum of @xmath240 ( @xmath118 is electron density ) , and thus an effective magnetic field of @xmath241 acts on the conduction electron spin ( @xmath242 is the gyromagnetic ratio ) . when the @xmath2 exchange interaction between the conduction electron and localized spin is strong , this field multiplied by the the spin polarization , @xmath243 , is the field acting on the localized spin .
namely , the localized spin feels a current - induced effective magnetic field of @xmath244    one may argue more rigorously using field theoretic description . considering the case of @xmath2 exchange interaction stronger than the rashba interaction , we use a unitary transformation to diagonalize the @xmath2 exchange interaction ( eq .
( [ ucdef ] ) ) .
the rashba interaction in the field representation then becomes @xmath245 where @xmath246 is the spin current in the rotated frame , @xmath247 is given in eq .
( [ rij ] ) .
terms containing spatial derivatives of magnetization structure is neglected , considering the slowly - varying structure . in this adiabatic limit
, spin current is polarized along the @xmath20 direction , i.e. , @xmath248 .
we therefore obtain using @xmath249 , @xmath250 which results in the same expression as eq .
( [ br ] ) .
the strength of the rashba - induced magnetic field is estimated ( choosing @xmath251 ) as @xmath252(jm)@xmath116(a / m@xmath48 ) ; for a strong rashba interaction @xmath253 ev  like at surfaces @xcite , @xmath254 t at @xmath255 a / m@xmath48 .
this field appears not very strong , but is sufficient at modify the magnetization dynamics .
in fact , for the domain wall motion , when the rashba - induced magnetic field is along the magnetic easy axis , the field is equivalent to that of an effective @xmath170 parameter of @xmath256 where @xmath17 is the wall thickness . if @xmath253 ev , @xmath257 becomes extremely large like @xmath258 for @xmath259 nm .
note that @xmath170 arising from spin relaxation is the same order as gilbert damping constant , namely of the order of @xmath16 .
such a large effective @xmath170 is expected to leads to an extremely fast domain wall motion under current @xcite .
experimentally , it was argued that fast domain wall motion observed in pt / co / alo was due to the rashba interaction @xcite , but the result is later associated with the torque generated by spin hall effect in pt layer @xcite .
it was recently shown theoretically that strong rashba - induced magnetic field works as a strong pinning center when introduced locally , and that this rashba pinning effect is useful for highly reliable control of domain walls in racetrack memories @xcite .      since the interaction ( [ hrrot ] ) is the one coupling to the spin current , the rashba interaction is regarded as a gauge field acting on electron spin as far as the linear order concerns . the gauge field defined by eq .
( [ hrrot ] ) is @xmath260 existence of a gauge field naturally leads to an effective electric and magnetic field @xcite @xmath261 in the presence of electron spin relaxation , the electric field has a perpendicular component @xcite @xmath262 , \label{erp}\ ] ] where @xmath257 is a coefficient representing the strength of spin relaxation . for the case of strong rashba interaction of @xmath263 ev ,
as realized in bi / ag , the magnitude of the electric field is @xmath264kv / m if the angular frequency @xmath265 of magnetization dynamics is 10 ghz .
the magnitude of relaxation contribution is @xmath266v / m if @xmath267 .
the effective magnetic field in the case of spatial length scale of 10 nm is high as well ; @xmath268 t .
generated by magnetization precession .
electric current @xmath239 is induced as a result of motive force @xmath269 in the direction perpendicular to both @xmath270 and rashba field @xmath234 .
[ figes_alpha ] ]    the rashba - induced electric fields , @xmath271 and @xmath269 , are important from the viewpoint of spin - charge conversion .
in fact , results ( [ erbr])([erp ] ) indicates that a voltage is generated by a dynamics magnetization if the rashba interaction is present , even in the case of spatially uniform magnetization , in sharp contrast to the conventional adiabatic effective electric field from the spin berry s phase of eq .
( [ esbsdef ] ) . in the case of a think film with rashba interaction perpendicular to the plane and with a precessing magnetization ,
the component @xmath272 has no dc component , while the relaxation contribution @xmath269 has a dc component perpendicular to @xmath273 .
the geometry of this ( spin - polarized ) current pumping effect , @xmath274 , is therefore the same as the one expected in the case of inverse edelstein effect ( fig .
[ figes_alpha ] ) . in the present form , there is a difference between the rashba - induced electric field effect and the system in ref .
@xcite , that is , the former assumes a direct contact between the rashba interaction and magnetization while they are separated by a ag spacer in ref .
it is expected , however , that the rashba - induced electric field becomes long - ranged and survives in the presence of a spacer if we include the electron diffusion processes .
the spin - charge conversion observed in junctions will then be interpreted as due to the rashba - induced electromagnetic field .
for this scenario to be justified , it is crucial to confirm the existence of magnetic component , @xmath275 , which can be of the order of 100 t . in the setup of fig .
[ figes_alpha ] , @xmath275 is along @xmath276 .
the field can therefore be detected by measuring `` giant '' in - plane spin hall effect when a current is injected perpendicular to the plane .
the idea of effective gauge field is useful for extending the discussion to include other degrees of freedom , like optical properties .
in fact , the fact that the rashba interaction coupled with magnetization leads to an effective vector potential @xmath277 ( eq .
( [ avrdef ] ) ) for electron spin indicates that the existence of intrinsic spin flow . such intrinsic flow affects the optical properties , as incident electromagnetic waves get doppler shift when interacting with flowing electrons , resulting in a transmission depending on the direction ( directional dichroism ) , as was theoretically demonstrated in refs .
the magnitude of the directional dichroism for the case of wave vector @xmath278 is given by @xmath279 .
the vector @xmath280 is called in the context of multiferroics the toroidal moment , and it was argued to acts as an effective vector potential for light @xcite .    .
edelstein effect ( e ) generates spin density , @xmath281 , from the applied electric field , and inverse edelstein effect ( ie ) generates current @xmath282 from magnetization @xmath283 .
[ figeie ] ]    it was shown also that rashba conductor , even without magnetization , shows peculiar optical properties such as negative refraction as a result of spin - charge mixing effects @xcite .
in fact , spin - charge mixing effects of eq .
( [ spinchargemixing ] ) leads to a current generated by applied electric field , @xmath235 , given by @xmath284 , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath285 is a coefficient ( fig .
[ figeie ] ) . as it is opposite to the applied field , the mixing effect results in a softening of the plasma frequency as for the @xmath235 having components perpendicular to @xmath234 .
the electric permitivity of the system is therefore anisotropic ; choosing @xmath234 along the @xmath20 axis , we have @xmath286 where @xmath287 is the bare plasma frequency ( @xmath288 is the electron density ) , and @xmath289 is the plasma frequency reduced by the spin mixing effect .
@xcite ( @xmath290 represents the correlation function representing the rashba - edelstein effect , and its real part is negative . )
the frequency region @xmath291 is of interest , as the system is insulating ( @xmath292 ) in the direction of the rashba field but metallic in the perpendicular direction ( @xmath293 ) .
the dispersion in this case becomes hyperbolic , and the group velocity and phase velocity along @xmath278 can have opposite direction , resulting in negative refraction .
rashba system is , therefore a natural hyperbolic metamaterial @xcite .
a great advantage of rashba conductors are that the metamaterial behavior arises in the infrared or visible light region , which is not easily accessible in fabricated systems .
for instance , in the case of bitei with rashba splitting of @xmath294 ev@xcite , the plasma frequency is @xmath295 hz ( corresponding to a wavelength of @xmath296 m ) for @xmath297 m@xmath298 and @xmath299 ev @xcite . we then have @xmath300 ( @xmath301 hz , corresponding to the wavelength of @xmath302 m ) , and hyperbolic behavior arises in the infrared regime . the directional dichroism arises in the infrared - red light regime @xcite .
another interesting effect of spin gauge field pointed out recently is to induce the dzyaloshinskii - moriya interaction .
dzyaloshinskii - moriya ( dm ) interaction is an antisymmetric exchange interaction between magnetic atoms that can arise when inversion symmetry is broken . in the continuum limit , it is represented as @xmath303 where @xmath304 is the strength , @xmath15 and @xmath305 denotes the spin and spatial direction , respectively .
it was recently discussed theoretically that the interaction is a result of doppler shift due to an intrinsic spin current generated by broken inversion symmetry @xcite .
in fact , spin current density , @xmath116 , which is odd and even under spatial inversion and time - reversal , respectively , is induced by spin - orbit interaction in systems with broken inversion symmetry .
spatial variation of localized spins observed by the flowing electron spin is then described by a covariant derivative , @xmath306 where @xmath307 is a coefficient .
this covariant derivative leads to the magnetic energy generated by the electron of @xmath308 .
we see that the second term proportional to @xmath116 is the dm interaction , and thus the coefficient is @xmath309 .
more rigorous derivation is performed by deriving an effective hamiltonian .
the electrons interacting strongly with localized spin is described by a lagrangian ( [ lezexpression2 ] ) , where @xmath310 is an su(2 ) gauge field describing the spatial and temporal variation of localized spin . to discuss dm interaction ,
we include a spin - orbit interaction with broken inversion symmetry , @xmath311 c , \label{hso}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath312 is a vector representing the broken inversion symmetry .
( multiorbital cases are treated similarly @xcite . )
as is obvious from this form linear in spatial derivative and pauli matrix , the spin - orbit interaction generates a spin current proportional to @xmath312 . from eq .
( [ lezexpression2 ] ) , the effective lagrangian for localized spin to the linear order in derivative is @xmath313 where @xmath314 is the expectation value of the spin current density in the rotated frame . in terms of the spin current in the laboratory frame , @xmath315
, the effective hamiltonian reads @xmath316 where @xmath317 and @xmath318 is a component of @xmath315 perpendicular to the local magnetization direction , @xmath94 .
we therefore see that the dm coefficient is indeed given by the expectation value of the spin current density of the conduction electrons .
the first principles calculation based on this spin current expression turns out to have advantage of shorter calculation time than previous methods@xcite by evaluating twist energy of magnetization @xcite .
it has been noted that spin wave dispersion is modified in the presence of dm interaction , resulting in doppler shift of spin waves @xcite .
the spin wave doppler shift is natural from our physical interpretation of dm interaction , as dm interaction itself is a consequence of flowing electron spin current .
we have discussed various magnetic and electron transport properties in metallic ferromagnets from the view points of effective gauge field .
the concept of gauge field turned out to be highly useful to describe novel electromagnetic cross correlation effects and optical properties .


there is an increasing interest in the study of dynamic systems of fractional ( where `` fractional '' actually means `` non - integer '' ) order .
extending derivatives and integrals from integer to non - integer order has a firm and longstanding theoretical foundation .
leibniz mentioned this concept in a letter to lhopital over three hundred years ago .
following lhopital s and leibniz s first inquisition , fractional calculus was primarily a study reserved to the best minds in mathematics .
fourier , euler , and laplace are among the many that contributed to the development of fractional calculus . along the history
, many found , using their own notation and methodology , definitions that fit the concept of a non - integer order integral or derivative .
the most famous of these definitions among mathematicians , that have been popularized in the literature of fractional calculus , are the ones of riemann  liouville and grunwald  letnikov . on the other hand ,
the most intriguing and useful applications of fractional derivatives and integrals in engineering and science have been found in the past one hundred years . in some cases , the mathematical notions evolved in order to better meet the requirements of physical reality .
the best example of this is the caputo fractional derivative , nowadays the most popular fractional operator among engineers and applied scientists , obtained by reformulating the `` classical '' definition of riemann  liouville fractional derivative in order to be possible to solve fractional initial value problems with standard initial conditions @xcite . particularly in the last decade of the xx century , numerous applications and physical manifestations of fractional calculus have been found .
fractional differentiation is nowadays recognized as a good tool in various different fields : physics , signal processing , fluid mechanics , viscoelasticity , mathematical biology , electrochemistry , chemistry , economics , engineering , and control theory ( see , , @xcite ) .
the fractional calculus of variations was born in 1996 with the work of riewe @xcite , and is nowadays a subject under strong current research ( see @xcite and references therein ) .
the fractional calculus of variations extends the classical variational calculus by considering fractional derivatives into the variational integrals to be extremized .
this occurs naturally in many problems of physics and mechanics , in order to provide more accurate models of physical phenomena ( see , , @xcite ) .
the aims of this paper are twofold .
firstly , we extend the notion of caputo fractional derivative to the fractional derivative @xmath0 , which is a convex combination of the left caputo fractional derivative of order @xmath1 and the right caputo fractional derivative of order @xmath2 .
this idea goes back at least as far as @xcite , where based on the riemann
liouville fractional derivatives , the symmetric fractional derivative was introduced .
approach @xcite is obtained in our framework as a particular case , by choosing parameter @xmath3 to be @xmath4 .
although the symmetric fractional derivative of riemann  liouville introduced by klimek is a useful tool in the description of some nonconservative models , this type of differentiation does not seems suitable for all kinds of variational problems .
indeed , the hypothesis that admissible trajectories @xmath5 have continuous symmetric fractional derivatives implies that @xmath6 ( @xcite ) .
therefore , the advantage of the fractional caputo - type derivative @xmath0 here introduced lies in the fact that using this derivative we can describe a more general class of variational problems .
it is also worth pointing out that the fractional derivative @xmath0 allows to generalize the results presented in @xcite .
our second aim is to introduce the subject of multiobjective fractional variational problems .
this seems to be a completely open area of research , never considered before in the literature . knowing the importance and relevance of multiobjective problems of the calculus of variations in physics , engineering , and economics ( see @xcite and the references given there ) , and the usefulness of fractional variational problems , we trust that the results now obtained will open interesting possibilities for future research .
main results of the the paper provide methods for identifying pareto optimal solutions . necessary and sufficient pareto optimality conditions are obtained by converting a multiobjective fractional variational problem into a single or a family of single fractional variational problems with an auxiliary scalar functional , possibly depending on some parameters .
the paper is organized as follows .
section  [ sec2 ] presents some preliminaries on fractional calculus , essentially to fix notations . in section  [ main:1 ]
we introduce the fractional derivative @xmath0 and provide the necessary concepts and results needed in the sequel .
our main results are stated and proved in section  [ ssec : pro ] and section  [ main:2 ] .
the fractional variational problems under our consideration are formulated in terms of the fractional derivative @xmath0 .
we discuss the fundamental concepts of a variational calculus such as the the euler
lagrange equations for the elementary ( subsection  [ ssec : el ] ) , isoperimetric ( subsection  [ sec : iso ] ) , and lagrange ( subsection  [ sec : lagr ] ) problems , as well as sufficient optimality ( subsection  [ ssec : suf ] ) and transversality ( subsection  [ sec : tran ] ) conditions .
section  [ main:2 ] deals with the multiobjective fractional variational calculus .
we present pareto optimality conditions ( subsection  [ sec : par : op ] ) and examples illustrating our results ( subsection  [ sec : ex ] ) .
in this section we review the necessary definitions and facts from fractional calculus . for more on the subject
we refer the reader to the books @xcite .
let @xmath7)$ ] and @xmath8 .
we begin by defining the left and the right riemann
liouville fractional integrals ( rlfi ) of order @xmath1 of a function @xmath9 .
the left rlfi is given by @xmath10,\ ] ] and the right rlfi by @xmath11,\ ] ] where @xmath12 represents the gamma function , , @xmath13 moreover , @xmath14 if @xmath9 is a continuous function .
the left and the right riemann
liouville derivatives are defined with the help of the respective fractional integrals . the left riemann
liouville fractional derivative ( rlfd ) is given by @xmath15,\ ] ] and the right rlfd by @xmath16.\ ] ] let @xmath17)$ ] , where @xmath18)$ ] represents the space of absolutely continuous functions on @xmath19 $ ] .
then the caputo fractional derivatives are defined as follows : the left caputo fractional derivative ( cfd ) by @xmath20,\ ] ] and the right cfd by @xmath21,\ ] ] where @xmath1 is the order of the derivative .
the operators  are obviously linear .
we now present the rule of fractional integration by parts for rlfi ( see , , @xcite ) .
let @xmath8 , @xmath22 , @xmath23 , and @xmath24 . if @xmath25)$ ] and @xmath26)$ ] , then @xmath27 in the discussion to follow , we will also need the following formulae for fractional integrations by parts : @xmath28 they can be derived using equations  , the identity , and performing integration by parts .
let @xmath30 and @xmath31 $ ] .
we define the fractional derivative operator @xmath0 by @xmath32 which acts on @xmath17)$ ] in the expected way : @xmath33 note that @xmath34 and @xmath35 .
the operator is obviously linear . using equations
it is easy to derive the following rule of fractional integration by parts for @xmath0 : @xmath36^{x = b}_{x = a}\\ + ( 1-\gamma)\left[-f(x){{_ai_x^{1-\beta}}}g(x)\right]^{x = b}_{x = a } + \int_a^b f(x){d^{\beta,\alpha}_{1-\gamma}}g(x)dx,\end{gathered}\ ] ] where @xmath37 .
let @xmath38 and @xmath39:[a , b]\rightarrow { \mathbb{r}}^{n}$ ] with @xmath40)$ ] , @xmath41 ; @xmath42 with @xmath43 and @xmath44 $ ] , @xmath41 .
then , @xmath45.\ ] ] let @xmath46 denote the set of all functions @xmath47\rightarrow { \mathbb{r}}^{n}$ ] such that @xmath48 exists and is continuous on the interval @xmath19 $ ] .
we endow @xmath46 with the following norm : @xmath49 where @xmath50 is a norm in @xmath51 . along the work
we denote by @xmath52 , @xmath53 ( @xmath54 ) , the partial derivative of function @xmath55 with respect to its @xmath56th argument .
let @xmath57 .
for simplicity of notation we introduce the operators @xmath58^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}$ ] and @xmath59 by @xmath60^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) & : = \left(x,\mathbf{y}(x),{{^cd}^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}}\mathbf{y}(x)\right ) \ , , \\ _
{ \lambda}\{\mathbf{y}\}^{\alpha,\beta}_\gamma(x ) & : = \left(x,\mathbf{y}(x),{{^cd}^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}}\mathbf{y}(x),\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r\right ) \ , .
\end{split}\ ] ]
we are concerned with the problem of finding the minimum of a functional @xmath61 , where @xmath62 is a subset of @xmath46 .
the formulation of a problem of the calculus of variations requires two steps : the specification of a performance criterion , and the statement of physical constraints that should be satisfied .
the performance criterion @xmath63 , also called cost functional ( or objective ) , must be specified for evaluating quantitatively the performance of the system under study .
we consider the following cost : @xmath64^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx,\ ] ] where @xmath65 $ ] is the independent variable ; @xmath66 is a real vector variable , the functions @xmath67 are generally called trajectories or curves ; @xmath68 stands for the fractional derivative of @xmath69 ; and @xmath70\times\mathbb{r}^{2n } ; \mathbb{r})$ ] is the lagrangian .
enforcing constraints in the optimization problem reduces the set of candidate functions and leads to the following definition .    a trajectory @xmath71 is said to be an admissible trajectory , provided it satisfies all the constraints of the problem along the interval @xmath19 $ ] .
the set of admissible trajectories is defined as @xmath72 .
we now define what is meant by a minimum of @xmath63 on @xmath73 .
a trajectory @xmath74 is said to be a local minimizer for @xmath63 on @xmath73 , if there exists @xmath75 such that @xmath76 for all @xmath77 with @xmath78 .    the concept of variation of a functional is central to the solution of problems of the calculus of variations .
the first variation of @xmath63 at @xmath71 in the direction @xmath79 is defined as @xmath80 provided the limit exists .
a direction @xmath79 , @xmath81 , is said to be an admissible variation for @xmath63 at @xmath77 if    * @xmath82 exists ; and * @xmath83 for all sufficiently small @xmath84 .
the following well known result offers a necessary optimality condition for the problems of the calculus of variations , based on the concept of variations .
[ nesse_con ] let @xmath63 be a functional defined on @xmath73 .
suppose that @xmath67 is a local minimizer for @xmath63 on @xmath73 .
then , @xmath85 for each admissible variation @xmath86 at @xmath67 .
let us begin with the following fundamental problem : @xmath87^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx \longrightarrow \min\\\ ] ] over all @xmath71 satisfying the boundary conditions @xmath88 where @xmath89 are given .
the next theorem gives the fractional euler
lagrange equation for the problem .
[ theo e - l1 ] let @xmath90 be a local minimizer to problem . then , @xmath67 satisfies the following system of @xmath91 fractional euler
lagrange equations : @xmath92^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0 , \quad i=2,\ldots n+1,\ ] ] for all @xmath93 $ ] .
suppose that @xmath67 is a local minimizer for @xmath63 .
let @xmath86 be an arbitrary admissible variation for problem  , , @xmath94 , @xmath41 .
based on the differentiability properties of @xmath95 and theorem  [ nesse_con ] , a necessary condition for @xmath67 to be a local minimizer is given by @xmath96 that is , @xmath97^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) h_{i-1}(x ) + \sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\partial_{n+i}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x){^cd^{\alpha_{i-1},\beta_{i-1}}_{\gamma_{i-1}}}h_{i-1}(x)\biggr]dx=0.\ ] ] using formulae of integration by parts in the second term of the integrand function , we get @xmath98^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)+{d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right]h_{i-1}(x)dx\\ + \gamma\left.\left[\sum_{i=2}^{n+1}h_{i-1}(x)\left({{_xi_b^{1-\alpha_{i-1}}}}\partial_{n+i}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right)\right]\right|^{x = b}_{x = a}\\ -(1-\gamma)\left.\left[\sum_{i=2}^{n+1}h_{i-1}(x)\left({{_ai_x^{1-\beta_{i-1}}}}\partial_{n+i}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right)\right]\right|^{x = b}_{x = a}=0.\end{gathered}\ ] ] since @xmath94 , @xmath41 , by the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations we deduce that @xmath99^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0 , \quad i=2,\ldots , n+1,\ ] ] for all @xmath93 $ ] .
observe that if @xmath1 and @xmath2 go to @xmath100 , then @xmath101 can be replaced with @xmath102 and @xmath103 with @xmath104 ( see @xcite ) .
thus , if @xmath105 or @xmath106 , then for @xmath107 we obtain a corresponding result in the classical context of the calculus of variations ( see , , ( * ? ? ?
* proposition  6.1 ) ) .
let @xmath108 .
assume that @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath41 , @xmath111 , but @xmath112 is free .
then , @xmath113 is free and by equations and we obtain @xmath114^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \left.-(1-\gamma ) { _ ai_x^{1-\beta_l}}\partial_{n+1+l } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\bigr]\right|_{x = b}=0,\ ] ] where @xmath115 .
let us consider now the case when @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath41 , @xmath111 , and @xmath112 is free but restricted by a terminal condition @xmath116 .
then , in the optimal solution @xmath67 , we have two possible types of outcome : @xmath117 or @xmath118 . if @xmath117 , then there are admissible neighboring paths with terminal value both above and below @xmath112 , so that @xmath113 can take either sign .
therefore , the transversality conditions is @xmath119^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \left.-(1-\gamma ) { _ ai_x^{1-\beta_l}}\partial_{n+1+l } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\bigr]\right|_{x = b}=0\ ] ] for @xmath120 .
the other outcome @xmath118 only admits the neighboring paths with terminal value @xmath121 .
assuming , without loss of generality , that @xmath122 , this means that @xmath123 .
hence , the transversality condition , which has it root in the first order condition , must be changed to an inequality . for a minimization problem ,
the @xmath124 type of inequality is called for , and we obtain @xmath125^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \left.-(1-\gamma ) { _ ai_x^{1-\beta_l}}\partial_{n+1+l } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\bigr]\right|_{x = b } \leq 0\ ] ] for @xmath118 . combining and , we may write the following transversality condition for a minimization problem : @xmath126^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \left.-(1-\gamma ) { _ ai_x^{1-\beta_l}}\partial_{n+1+l } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\bigr]\right|_{x = b } \leq 0 , \quad y_l(b)\leq y^{b}_l,\\ ( y_l(b)-y^{b}_l ) \bigl[\gamma { _ xi_b^{1-\alpha_l } } \partial_{n+l+1}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \left.-(1-\gamma ) { _ ai_x^{1-\beta_l}}\partial_{n+1+l } l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\bigr]\right|_{x = b}=0.\end{gathered}\ ] ]
let us consider now the isoperimetric problem that consists of minimizing over all @xmath71 satisfying @xmath127 isoperimetric constraints @xmath128^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)dx = l_j , \quad j=1,\ldots , r,\ ] ] where @xmath129\times\mathbb{r}^{2n } ; \mathbb{r})$ ] , @xmath130 , and boundary conditions .
necessary optimality conditions for isoperimetric problems can be obtained by the following general theorem .
[ nes : iso ] let @xmath131 be functionals defined in a neighborhood of @xmath67 and having continuous first variations in this neighborhood .
suppose that @xmath67 is a local minimizer of subject to the boundary conditions and the isoperimetric constrains .
assume that there are functions @xmath132 such that the matrix @xmath133 , @xmath134 , has maximal rank @xmath127 .
then there exist constants @xmath135 such that the functional @xmath136 satisfies @xmath137 for all @xmath79    suppose now that assumptions of theorem  [ nes : iso ] hold .
then , equation is fulfilled for every @xmath138 .
let us consider function @xmath86 such that @xmath139 . then
, we have @xmath140dx,\end{gathered}\ ] ] where the function @xmath141\times { \mathbb{r}}^{2n}\times { \mathbb{r}}^r \rightarrow { \mathbb{r}}$ ] is defined by @xmath142^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) -\sum_{j=1}^{r}\lambda_{j } g^{j}[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x).\ ] ] on account of the above , and similarly in spirit to the proof of theorem  [ theo e - l1 ] , we obtain @xmath143    therefore , we have the following necessary optimality condition for the fractional isoperimetric problems :    [ th : b : el - cv ] let assumptions of theorem  [ nes : iso ] hold . if @xmath67 is a local minimizer to the isoperimetric problem given by , and , then @xmath67 satisfies the system of @xmath91 fractional euler
lagrange equations for all @xmath93 $ ] .
suppose now that constraints are characterized by inequalities @xmath144^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)dx \leq l_j , \quad j=1,\ldots , r.\ ] ] in this case we can set @xmath145^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) -\frac{l_j}{b - a}\right)dx + \int_{a}^{b}(\phi_j(x))^2dx=0,\ ] ] @xmath130 , where @xmath146 have the some continuity properties as @xmath147 .
therefore , we obtain the following problem : @xmath148 subject to @xmath127 isoperimetric constraints @xmath149^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) -\frac{l_j}{b - a}+(\phi_j(x))^2\right]dx=0 , \quad j=1,\ldots , r,\ ] ] and boundary conditions . assuming that assumptions of theorem  [ th : b : el - cv ] are satisfied
, we conclude that there exist constants @xmath150 , @xmath130 , for which the system of equations @xmath151 @xmath152 , @xmath153 and @xmath154 hold for all @xmath93 $ ] .
note that it is enough to assume that the regularity condition holds for the constraints which are active at the local minimizer @xmath67 ( constraint @xmath155 is active at @xmath67 if @xmath156 ) . indeed , suppose that @xmath157 constrains , say @xmath158 for simplicity , are active at the local minimizer @xmath67 , and there are functions @xmath159 such that the matrix @xmath160 has maximal rank @xmath161 . since the inequality constraints @xmath162 are inactive , the condition is trivially satisfied by taking @xmath163 . on the other hand , since the inequality constraints @xmath158 are active and satisfy a regularity condition at @xmath67 , the conclusion that there exist constants @xmath150 , @xmath130 , such that holds follow from theorem  [ th : b : el - cv ] .
moreover , is trivially satisfied for @xmath164 .
let us consider the following lagrange problem , which consists of minimizing over all @xmath71 satisfying @xmath127 independent constraints ( @xmath165 ) @xmath166^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0 , \quad j=1,\ldots , r,\ ] ] and boundary conditions . in mechanics ,
constraints of type are called nonholonomic . by the independence of the @xmath127 constraints @xmath129\times\mathbb{r}^{2n } ; \mathbb{r})$ ] it is meant that it should exist a nonvanishing jacobian determinant of order @xmath127 , such as @xmath167 .
of course , any @xmath127 of @xmath168 , @xmath169 , can be used , not necessarily the first @xmath127 .
[ lagrange ] a function @xmath67 which is a solution to problem , subject to @xmath127 independent constraints ( @xmath165 ) satisfies , for suitably chosen functions @xmath170 ,
@xmath130 , the system of @xmath91 fractional euler
lagrange equations @xmath171^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i}f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0 , \quad x\in[a , b ] , \quad i=2,\ldots , n+1,\ ] ] where @xmath172^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x )
= l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + \sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j(x)g^j[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)$ ] .
suppose that @xmath173 is the solution to problem defined by , , and .
let @xmath174 be an arbitrary admissible variation , , @xmath94 , @xmath41 , and @xmath175^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0 $ ] , @xmath176 where @xmath177 is a small parameter . because @xmath173 is a solution to problem defined by , , and
, it follows that @xmath96 that is , @xmath178^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) h_{i-1}(x ) + \sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\partial_{n+i}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) { ^cd^{\alpha_{i-1},\beta_{i-1}}_{\gamma_{i-1}}}h_{i-1}(x)\biggr]dx=0,\ ] ] and , for @xmath130 , @xmath179^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)h_{i-1}(x ) + \sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\partial_{n+i}g^j[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) { ^cd^{\alpha_{i-1},\beta_{i-1}}_{\gamma_{i-1}}}h_{i-1}(x)=0.\ ] ] multiplying the @xmath180th equation of the system by the unspecified function @xmath181 , for all @xmath130 , integrating with respect to @xmath182 , and adding the left - hand sides ( all equal to zero for any choice of the @xmath170 ) to the integrand of , we obtain @xmath183^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + \sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j(x)\partial_ig^j[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right)h_{i-1}(x)\right.\\ & \left . \quad
+ \sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\left(\partial_{n+i}l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + \sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j(x)\partial_{n+i}g^j[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right)({^cd^{\alpha_{i-1},\beta_{i-1}}_{\gamma_{i-1}}}h_{i-1}(x))\right]dx\\ & = \int_a^b\left[\sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\partial_i f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) h_{i-1}(x ) + \sum_{i=2}^{n+1}\partial_{n+i}f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) ( { ^cd^{\alpha_{i-1},\beta_{i-1}}_{\gamma_{i-1}}}h_{i-1}(x))\right]dx\\ & = 0 , \end{split}\ ] ] where @xmath172^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) = l[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + \sum_{j=1}^r\lambda(x ) g^j[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)$ ] . integrating by parts ,
@xmath184^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i } f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right ] h_{i-1}(x)dx=0.\ ] ] because of , we can not regard the @xmath91 functions @xmath185 as being free for arbitrary choice .
there is a subset of @xmath127 of these functions whose assignment is restricted by the assignment of the remaining @xmath186 .
we can assume , without loss of generality , that @xmath187 are the functions of the set whose dependence upon the choice of the arbitrary @xmath188 is governed by .
we now assign the functions @xmath189 to be the set of @xmath127 functions that make vanish ( for all @xmath182 between @xmath190 and @xmath191 ) the coefficients of @xmath187 in the integrand of .
that is , @xmath189 are chosen so as to satisfy @xmath192^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i } f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0 , \quad i=2,\ldots , r+1 , \quad x\in[a , b].\ ] ] with this choice gives @xmath193^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i } f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\right ] h_{i-1}(x)dx=0.\ ] ] since the functions @xmath188 are arbitrary , we may employ the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations to conclude that @xmath194^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) + { d^{\beta_{i-1},\alpha_{i-1}}_{1-\gamma_{i-1}}}\partial_{n+i}f[\mathbf{y},\mathbf{\lambda}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)=0,\ ] ] @xmath195 , for all @xmath93 $ ] .    in order to determine the @xmath196 unknown functions
@xmath197 , @xmath189 , we must consider the system of @xmath196 equations , consisting of , , and , together with the @xmath198 boundary conditions .
assume now that the constraints , instead of , are characterized by inequalities : @xmath199^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\leq 0 , \quad j=1,\ldots , r.\ ] ] in this case we can set @xmath200^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)+(\phi_j(x))^2=0 , \quad j=1,\ldots , r,\ ] ] where @xmath146 have the some continuity properties as @xmath147 .
therefore , we obtain the following problem : @xmath201 subject to @xmath127 independent constraints ( @xmath165 ) @xmath202^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)+(\phi_j(x))^2=0 , \quad j=1,\ldots , r,\ ] ] and boundary conditions . applying theorem  [ lagrange ]
we get the following result .
[ lagrange : ineq ] a set of functions @xmath203 , @xmath204 , which is a solution to problem  , satisfies , for suitably chosen @xmath170 , @xmath130 , the following system of equations : @xmath205 @xmath152 , where @xmath206 , and @xmath207 , @xmath130 , hold for all @xmath93 $ ] .      in this section
we provide sufficient optimality conditions for the elementary and the isoperimetric problem of the @xmath0 fractional calculus of variations .
similarly to what happens in the classical calculus of variations , some conditions of convexity are in order .    given a function @xmath208\times\mathbb{r}^{2n } ; \mathbb{r})$ ] , we say that @xmath209 is jointly convex in @xmath210 , if @xmath211 for all @xmath212,@xmath213\times\mathbb{r}^{2n}$ ] .
[ suff ] let @xmath214 be jointly convex in @xmath210 .
if @xmath67 satisfies the system of @xmath91 fractional euler
lagrange equations , then @xmath67 is a global minimizer to problem .    the proof is similar to the proof of theorem  3.3 in @xcite .
[ suff : iso ] let @xmath215 be jointly convex in @xmath210 , for some constants @xmath216 , @xmath130 . if @xmath217 satisfies the system of @xmath91 fractional euler
lagrange equations , then @xmath217 is a minimizer to the isoperimetric problem defined by , and .    by theorem  [ suff ] , @xmath217 minimizes @xmath218 . that is , for all functions satisfying condition we have @xmath219^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx-\sum_{j=1}^{r}\bar{\lambda}_{j}\int_a^bg^{j}[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx\\
\geq \int_a^b l[\mathbf{y}^0]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx-\sum_{j=1}^{r}\bar{\lambda}_{j}\int_a^bg^{j}[\mathbf{y}^0]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx.\end{gathered}\ ] ] restricting to the isoperimetric constraints , we obtain that @xmath220^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx -\sum_{j=1}^{r}\bar{\lambda}_{j}l_{j}\ , dx\geq \int_a^b l[\mathbf{y}^0]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx -\sum_{j=1}^{r}\bar{\lambda}_{j}l_{j}\ , dx.\ ] ] therefore , @xmath220^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx \geq \int_a^b l[\mathbf{y}^0]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\ , dx\ ] ] as desired .
choosing @xmath221 in theorem  [ suff : iso ] one can easily obtain ( * ? ? ?
* theorem  3.10 ) .
multiobjective optimization is a natural extension of the traditional optimization of a single - objective function .
if the objective functions are commensurate , minimizing one - objective function minimizes all criteria and the problem can be solved using tradicional optimization techniques . however , if the objective functions are incommensurate , or competing , then the minimization of one objective function requires a compromise in another objective .
here we consider multiobjective fractional variational problems with a finite number @xmath222 of objective ( cost ) functionals @xmath223^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx , \ldots , \int_a^b l^d[\mathbf{y}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx \right)\longrightarrow \min\ ] ] subject to the boundary conditions @xmath224 @xmath89 , and @xmath127 ( @xmath165 ) independent constraints @xmath225^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x)\leq 0 , \quad j=1,\ldots , r,\ ] ] where @xmath226\times\mathbb{r}^{2n } ; \mathbb{r})$ ] , @xmath227 , @xmath130 .
we would like to find a function @xmath71 , satisfying constraints and , that renders the minimum value to each functional @xmath228 , @xmath229 , simultaneously .
the competition between objectives gives rise to the necessity of distinguish between the difference of multiobjective optimization and traditional single - objective optimization .
competition causes the lack of complete order for multiobjective optimization problems .
the concept of pareto optimality is therefore used to characterize a solution to the multiobjective optimization problem . for
the usefulness of variational analysis and pareto optimal allocations in welfare economics , we refer the reader to @xcite .
we define @xmath230    [ def : paret ] a function @xmath231 is called a pareto optimal solution to problem  if does not exist @xmath232 with @xmath233    definition  [ def : paret ] introduces the notion of _ global pareto optimality_. another important concept is the one of _ local pareto optimality_.    [ def : locparet ] a function @xmath231 is called a local pareto optimal solution to problem  if there exists @xmath234 for which does not exist @xmath232 with @xmath78 and @xmath235    naturally , any global pareto optimal solution is locally pareto optimal . for enhanced notions of pareto optimality of constrained multiobjective problems ,
the reader is referred to @xcite .
we obtain a sufficient condition for pareto optimality by modifying the original multiobjective fractional problem  into the following weighting problem : @xmath236^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx \longrightarrow \min\ ] ] subject to @xmath237 , where @xmath238 for all @xmath227 , and @xmath239 .
[ pareto : suf ] the solution of the weighting problem is pareto optimal if the weighting coefficients are positive , that is , @xmath240 for all @xmath227 .
moreover , the unique solution of the weighting problem is pareto optimal .
let @xmath231 be a solution to problem with @xmath240 for all @xmath227 .
suppose that @xmath241 is not pareto optimal .
then , there exists @xmath67 such that @xmath242 for all @xmath227 and @xmath243 for at least one @xmath180 . since @xmath240 for all @xmath227 , we have @xmath244 .
this contradicts the minimality of @xmath241 .
now , let @xmath241 be the unique solution to
. if @xmath241 is not pareto optimal , then @xmath245 .
this contradicts the uniqueness of @xmath241 .
therefore , by varying the weights over the unit simplex @xmath246 ones obtains , in principle , different pareto optimal solutions .
the next theorem provides a necessary and sufficient condition for pareto optimality .
the result is analogous to that valid for the finite dimensional case ( see , , chapter  3.1 and chapter  3.3 of @xcite ) .
[ pareto : nes : suf ] a function @xmath231 is pareto optimal to problem  if and only if it is a solution to the scalar fractional variational problem @xmath247^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx \longrightarrow \min\ ] ] subject to @xmath232 and @xmath248^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx \leq \int_a^b l^j[\bar{\mathbf{y}}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx , \quad j=1,\ldots , d,\quad j\neq i,\ ] ] for each @xmath227 .
suppose that @xmath241 is pareto optimal .
then @xmath249 for all @xmath250 , so @xmath251 . if @xmath241 does not minimize @xmath252 on the constrained set @xmath253 for some @xmath250 , then there exists @xmath232 such that @xmath254 and @xmath255 for all @xmath256 .
this contradicts the pareto optimality of @xmath241 . now , suppose that @xmath241 minimize each @xmath252 on the constrained set @xmath253 .
if @xmath241 is not pareto optimal , then there exists @xmath67 such that @xmath242 for all @xmath227 and @xmath243 for at least one @xmath180 .
this contradicts the minimality of @xmath67 for @xmath257 on @xmath258 .
[ pareto : nes ] for a function @xmath232 to be pareto optimal to problem  , it is necessary to be a solution to the fractional isoperimetric problems @xmath247^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx \longrightarrow \min\ ] ] subject to @xmath232 and @xmath248^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx = \int_a^b l^j[\bar{\mathbf{y}}]^{\alpha,\beta}_{\gamma}(x ) \ , dx , \quad j=1,\ldots , d,\quad j\neq i,\ ] ] for all @xmath227 .
therefore , necessary optimality conditions for the fractional isoperimetric problems ( see theorem  [ th : b : el - cv ] ) are also necessary for fractional pareto optimality .
we illustrate our results with two multiobjective fractional variational problems .
let @xmath259 , @xmath260 $ ] , where @xmath261 is the mittag  leffler function : @xmath262 when @xmath263 , the mittag  leffler function is simply the exponential function : @xmath264 .
we note that the left caputo fractional derivative of @xmath265 is @xmath265 ( @xcite , p.  98 ) : @xmath266 consider the following multiobjective fractional variational problem ( @xmath267 , @xmath105 , and @xmath268 ) : @xmath269 subject to @xmath270 observe that @xmath265 satisfies the necessary pareto optimality conditions ( see remark  [ pareto : nes ] ) . indeed , as shown in ( * ? ? ?
* example  1 ) , @xmath265 is a solution to the isoperimetric problem @xmath271 subject to @xmath272 consider now the following fractional isoperimetric problem : @xmath273 subject to @xmath274 let us apply theorem  [ nes : iso ] .
the equality @xmath275 holds if and only if @xmath276 with @xmath277 ( see ( * ? ? ? * corollary  2.1 ) ) .
hence , @xmath265 does not satisfy equation @xmath278 .
the augmented function is @xmath279 and the corresponding fractional euler
lagrange equation gives @xmath280 a solution to this equation is @xmath281 and @xmath282 .
therefore , by remark  [ pareto : nes ] , @xmath282 is a candidate pareto optimal solution to problem .    [ ex:2 ] consider the following multiobjective fractional variational problem : @xmath283 subject to @xmath284 where @xmath9 is a fixed function . in this case
we have @xmath267 , @xmath105 , and @xmath268 . by theorem  [ pareto : suf ] , pareto optimal solutions to problem  can be found by considering the family of problems @xmath285 subject to @xmath286 where @xmath287 $ ] .
let us now fix @xmath288
. by theorem  [ theo e - l1 ] , a solution to problem  satisfies the fractional euler
lagrange equation @xmath289 moreover , by theorem  [ suff ] , a solution to is a global minimizer to problem . therefore , solving equation for @xmath287 $ ] , we are able to obtain pareto optimal solutions to problem . in order to solve equation , firstly we use corollary  2.1 of @xcite to get the following equation : @xmath290     the minimizer of example  [ ex:2 ] for @xmath291 and @xmath292 . ]
equation   needs to be solved numerically .
we did numerical simulations using the matlab solver ` fode ` for linear fractional - order differential equations ( fode ) with constant coefficients , developed by farshad merrikh bayat @xcite .
the results for @xmath293 , @xmath291 , and different values of the parameter @xmath288 can be seen in figure  [ fig ] .
numerical results for different values of @xmath1 show that when @xmath294 the fractional solution converges to the solution of the classical problem of the calculus of variations .
the authors would like to express their gratitude to ivo petras , for having called their attention to @xcite as well as for helpful discussions on numerical aspects and available software packages for fractional differential equations .                        , on the solution of nonlinear fractional - order differential equations used in the modeling of viscoplasticity . in : f. keil , w. mackens , h. vo , j. werther ( eds . ) : _ scientific computing in chemical engineering ii . computational fluid dynamics , reaction engineering , and molecular properties_. springer - verlag , heidelberg , 1999 , 217224 .    , necessary optimality conditions for fractional action - like integrals of variational calculus with riemann  liouville derivatives of order @xmath295 , math .
methods appl .
sci . * 30 * ( 2007 ) , no .
15 , 19311939 .
arxiv : math - ph/0702099