Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: over the last fifteen years there has been consistent theoretical interest in possible small deviations from the exact local lorentz invariance ( li ) of general relativity as well as a flourishing of observational tests . the theoretical interest is driven primarily by ideas in the quantum gravity ( qg ) community that lorentz invariance may not be an exact local symmetry of the vacuum . the possibility of outright lorentz symmetry violation ( lv ) or a different realization of the symmetry than in special relativity has arisen in string theory  @xcite , loop qg  @xcite , non - commutative geometry  @xcite , space - time foam  @xcite , some brane - world backgrounds  @xcite , and condensed matter analogues of `` emergent gravity ''  @xcite . as well , allowing the fundamental theory of gravity to be non - relativistic in the ultraviolet can make gravity renormalizable while avoiding some of the other pathologies that plague renormalizable gravitational actions with higher derivative terms  @xcite . constructing useful tests for the various active models and ideas is therefore vital . since there are so many theoretical models around , a good approach is to work within a calculable framework where all possible lv terms are parameterized . each theory then picks out a certain combination of terms which can be constrained . in this vein , a standard method is to simply analyze a lagrangian containing the standard model fields and all lv operators of interest that can be constructed by coupling the standard model fields to new lv tensor fields that have non - zero vacuum expectation values . all renormalizable lv operators that can be added to the standard model in this way are known as the standard model extension ( sme )  @xcite . these operators all have mass dimension three or four and can be further classified by their behavior under cpt . higher mass dimension operators can be systematically explored as well , which is useful in case the naive eft hierarchy breaks down due to other new physics ( e.g.  susy ) or quantum gravity introducing a custodial mechanism for the renormalizable operators in the infrared . the cpt odd dimension five kinetic terms for qed coupled to a non - zero vector field were written down in  @xcite while the full set of dimension five operators with a vector were analyzed in  @xcite . the dimension five and six cpt even kinetic terms for qed for particles coupled to a non - zero background vector , which we are primarily interested in here , were partially analyzed in  @xcite . the full set of dimension five and six operators for qed has recently been introduced in  @xcite . it is notable that susy forbids renormalizable operators for matter coupled to non - zero vectors  @xcite but permits certain nonrenormalizable operators at mass dimension five and six . many of the parameterized lv operators have been very tightly constrained via direct observations ( see  @xcite for reviews ) . in particular , the dimension five and six cpt even operators for lv with a vector field have been recently directly energies . susy , however , is an example of new relevant physics that can change this . ] constrained in the hadronic sector by exploiting ultra - high energy cosmic - ray observations @xcite performed by the pierre auger observatory ( pao ) . indeed , the construction and successful operation of this instrument has brought uhecrs to the interest of a wide community of scientists and it is expected to allow , in the near future , the assessment of several problems of uhecr physics and also to test fundamental physics ( in particular lorentz invariance in the qed sector ) with unprecedented precision @xcite . the uhecr constraints @xcite rely on the behavior of particle reaction thresholds with lv , which are one of the best methods in the eft approach to constrain nonrenormalizable lv operators . many lv operators give modified dispersion relations for free particles , where the energy as a function of momentum deviates slightly from the special relativistic form . for threshold reactions what matters is not the size of the lv correction to the energy compared to the absolute energy of the particle , but instead the size of the lv correction to the mass of the particles in the reaction . hence the lv terms usually become important when their size becomes comparable to the mass of the heaviest particle . if the lv term scales with energy as @xmath7 , then this critical energy is @xmath8 @xcite . according to this reasoning , the larger the particle mass the higher is the energy at which threshold lv effects come into play . this is why @xmath9 electrons and positrons , but not protons , can be used to constrain @xmath10 lv @xcite , and why uhe protons are needed to obtain constraints on hadronic lv with @xmath11 scaling ( which corresponds to cpt even mass dimension five and six operators ) . from this point of view , neutrinos , with their tiny mass of order @xmath12 @xcite , are in principle the most suited particles to provide strong constraints on lv , at least for reactions involving _ only _ neutrinos . one such reaction is that of neutrino oscillation . indeed , for a decade neutrino oscillations have proven to be excellent tests of the sme and other lv models  @xcite as when the lv corrections are near the neutrino mass , the oscillation pattern can change as a function of energy , direction and mass . icecube may even be able to probe dimension six operators with time of flight techniques with tev neutrinos from distant gamma ray bursts  @xcite . uhecr experiments have also the capability of placing constraints on sme parameters by exploiting neutrino oscillations @xcite . one can construct complementary and in some measures even more sensitive neutrino tests of higher dimension operators by leveraging observables which deviate more strongly from their special relativistic values as the neutrino travel distance increases . one such observable is found to be related to uhe neutrino spectrum observations .    despite the threshold being low for lv effects to kick in , neutrinos with ultra - high energy are necessary to achieve a signal , as they interact so weakly that the phase space for a lv reaction must be huge to generate an appreciable rate . this requirement implies that , since the lv terms and hence the phase space grow with energy , very large energies are needed . indeed , for renormalizable operators , where the phase space does not grow quickly enough , reactions of the type we consider here never achieve the necessary rate given current bounds on their coefficients , even for uhe neutrinos over cosmological distances  @xcite . however , for the cpt even non - renormalizable operators the situation is different , and we find that for energies of order @xmath4 there can be a significant modification of the spectrum . next generation neutrino detectors such as anita @xcite and supereuso @xcite are sensitive to neutrinos of energies @xmath13 . further experiments , like the planned arianna @xcite and iceray @xcite , will cover the range @xmath14 . in the present work we study how limits on the absolute scale of non - renormalizable cpt even lv neutrino parameters can be obtained from uhe neutrino observations . in particular we will determine the energy scale where the neutrino spectrum might begin to deviate as a function of the size of the lv coefficients . with three neutrino species as well as assorted light leptons possibly involved , the spectrum as a function of various lv parameters can only be computed by a detailed parameterized numerical search . at this stage , where lv in this sector is only speculative , we feel that such a search is unwarranted . however , we will show the `` best case '' scenario for a lv neutrino signal with dimension six operators as well as a scenario where a signal in the uhe spectrum is much more subtle even though lv is still relatively strong . this paper is structured as follows . in section  [ sec : theo ] we describe the theoretical lv framework in which we will derive the lv effects on the uhe neutrino spectrum . in sections  [ sec : nulv ] and [ sec : nusplitting ] we will give general information on the standard understanding of uhe neutrino generation by uhecrs , and we will present and detail the main lv reactions possibly affecting their spectrum . section  [ sec : bestcase ] is devoted to present results in our test cases . in section [ sec : otherprocesses ] we discuss the possible role of other processes than neutrino splitting . in section  [ sec : conclusions ] we will report our final remarks and conclusions . in order to study the phenomenological consequences of lv induced by qg , the existence of a dynamical framework in which to compute reaction thresholds and rates is essential . we assume that the low energy effects of lv can be parameterized in terms of a local eft . furthermore , for simplicity we assume that only boost invariance is broken , while rotations are preserved ( see @xcite for further comments on rotation breaking in this context ) . therefore we introduce lv by coupling standard model fields to a non - zero vector . more complicated forms could of course be chosen , however this would introduce significant direction dependence . with low statistics already for neutrino observatories , disentangling direction dependence would be a difficult task . we focus on the cpt even mass dimension five and six operators involving a vector field @xmath15 ( which we assume to describe the preferred reference frame in which the cmb is seen as isotropic ) coupled to a dirac neutrino @xmath16 in a mass eigenstate with mass @xmath17 that are quadratic in matter fields and hence modify the free field equations . neglecting the left - handed helicity of neutrinos for a moment , the lagrangian for a generic fermion is the usual dirac term plus @xcite @xmath18 } \psi~,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath19 is a timelike unit vector describing the preferred frame , @xmath20 and @xmath21 are the usual right and left projection operators , @xmath22 , and @xmath23 is the gauge covariant derivative . the @xmath24 coefficients are dimensionless .    for fermions , at @xmath25 the helicity eigenstates are almost chiral , with mixing due to the particle mass and the dimension five operators . since we will be interested in high energy states , we re - label the @xmath24 coefficients by helicity , i.e.  @xmath26 . the resulting high energy dispersion relation for positive and negative helicity particles can easily be seen from ( [ eq : actionfermion ] ) to involve only the appropriate @xmath27 or @xmath28 terms . for compactness , we denote the helicity based dispersion by @xmath29 . therefore at high energies we have the dispersion relation @xmath30 where @xmath31 and @xmath32 . we have dropped the @xmath33 terms as the @xmath34 operator present in these terms makes the correction to the equations of motion proportional to @xmath35 and hence tiny . the dimension five fermion operators induce two corrections , one proportional to @xmath36 and one corresponding to a change in the limiting speed of the fermion away from @xmath37 . the second effect , generated by @xmath38 is naturally of order @xmath39 due to the mass suppression for neutrinos and hence can also be disregarded . furthermore , we can drop the positive helicity coefficients , as the dominant signal will be from left - handed neutrinos produced by standard model couplings . finally , since cpt is conserved , and neutrinos and antineutrinos exist only in opposite states of helicity , @xmath40 . all these lovely properties of neutrinos mean we have just one lv coefficient , while in other cases @xcite further assumptions , such as parity preservation , are needed to reduce the number of free parameters . the final dispersion relation we assume in this work for each mass eigenstate neutrinos and antineutrinos is @xmath41 where @xmath42 denotes the mass eigenstate of the neutrino . there is no reason why each mass eigenstate needs have the same coefficient , and indeed whether or not they do makes a dramatic difference in the observed spectrum . in particular , we will study two cases : in the `` flavor blind '' case all the @xmath43 have roughly the same magnitude , which translates in all the lv effects being essentially independent of flavor ; in the `` flavor dependent '' case the @xmath43 are instead different for different mass states , which makes the lv effects depend upon flavor states . among the `` flavor blind '' cases we can find a `` best case '' scenario , in which the effects of lv are maximal , as well as a `` worst case '' scenario , in which lv is present but is ineffective in the context of uhe neutrinos we are discussing now . a fairly accurate general estimate of the minimum energy in which lv corrections in equation ( [ eq : finaldisp ] ) is relevant is obtained , as stated previously , by comparing the largest mass of the particles entering in the lv reaction with the magnitude of the lv correction in these equations  @xcite . in our case , assuming @xmath44 , the typical energy at which lv contributions start to be relevant is of order @xmath45 , assuming @xmath46 . this energy of 10 tev allows observatories such as icecube to possibly constrain these operators in the future using neutrino oscillations . we instead focus on changes to the uhe neutrino spectrum induced by these operators . if we neglect exotic sources of uhe neutrinos ( as suggested in many top - down models for the production of uhecrs , now disfavored by the current experimental photon limits ) , the `` cosmogenic '' neutrino flux is created @xcite via the decay of charged pions produced by the interaction of primary nucleons with cmb photons above @xmath47 , the greisen - zatsepin - kuzmin ( gzk ) effect @xcite . hires @xcite and auger @xcite spectral observations seem to confirm the presence of a gzk suppression in the uhecr spectrum . although the suppression of the uhecr spectrum could be also due to the maximal accelerating power of uhecr sources , the fact that it occurs at just the right energy for being gzk taking place during propagation , and the results @xcite on the correlation of the uhecr arrival directions with the large scale distribution of matter within @xmath48 , seem to favor the gzk explanation . motivated by these considerations , we make here the hypothesis that the gzk reaction is at work during uhecr propagation . we have checked numerically that the process of pion decay is not strongly affected by the above lv if only neutrinos are lv . one might ask in general if lv effects in the hadronic sector , which we have so far neglected , can matter in the production of uhe neutrinos . we can neglect the hadronic sector because of the tight constraints already placed on such lv operators @xcite , which are stronger than what will be considered here . violation of lorentz invariance however introduces new phenomena in the propagation of uhe neutrinos . a partial list of these effects includes :    modified @xmath49 oscillations : :    since the lv is parameterized in the mass eigenstate , the lv terms act    as contributions to an effective mass and contribute to neutrino    oscillations . cosmogenic neutrinos are not the right phenomena with    which to study modified oscillations as they have oscillated many    times during their flight from an unknown source , making it extremely    hard to derive oscillation constraints . icecube and other neutrino    observatories may be sensitive to these operators for atmospheric    neutrinos . @xmath49-erenkov : :    erenkov radiation in vacuum via charge - radius coupling or gravity :    @xmath50 . this possibility has been    already investigated for renormalizable operators  @xcite . the    rate is too small for both renormalizable operators ( at current    limits ) or non - renormalizable operators , even for cosmogenic    neutrinos . it also involves additional lv coefficients for photon    emission and perhaps new modes for graviton emission  @xcite , thereby    complicating the analysis and , at best , yielding less definitive    limits . @xmath49-splitting : :    : @xmath51 . this effect is    what we focus on in the following , as it exclusively involves the    neutrino sector and has a high enough rate to be seen at uh energies . @xmath49-pair emission : :    : @xmath52 . here , @xmath53 represents some other fermion    species besides neutrinos . electrons are the only fermion species    light enough to have an effect compared to @xmath49-splitting    at uh energies . we initially will ignore this reaction , but we will    consider the possible effects of electron pair and hadronic emission    in section  [ sec : otherprocesses ] . to understand how a neutrino can split into three , it suffices to calculate the threshold energy for this reaction to occur , which in a lorentz invariant scenario would be infinite . let us compute the threshold for the decay @xmath54 , where @xmath55 , @xmath56 are neutrinos of mass @xmath57,@xmath58 and @xmath59 are the momenta . in the threshold configuration the momenta of the outgoing particles are all aligned and parallel to the direction of the incoming neutrino momentum @xcite , hence we choose all momenta to be in the @xmath60-direction . let @xmath61,@xmath62 and @xmath63 be the fraction of initial momentum carried respectively by the outgoing @xmath55 , by @xmath56 , and by @xmath64 , @xmath65 and @xmath66 . for a general dispersion relation with lv term @xmath67 the threshold equation ( the energy conservation equation imposing momentum conservation ) can then be written as @xmath68 = m_{\nu_a}^{2}\frac{1-x}{x } + m_{\nu_b}^{2}\left(\frac{1}{y } + \frac{1}{t}\right)~.   \label{eq : genthres}\ ] ]    when li is exact , the left hand side vanishes and there is no solution . with lv , in the simple case where @xmath11 and @xmath69 , we obtain the equation @xmath70    the minimum of the right - hand side in the equation above is 9 and is attained at @xmath71 , hence the threshold energy is given by @xmath72    note that @xmath73 must be positive in order for there to be splitting , i.e.  we must deal with superluminal neutrinos . if @xmath74 then the threshold energy must be solved for numerically as the lv parameter and mass are generically different . however , the existence of a finite threshold can still be shown for appropriate values of @xmath73 and @xmath75 . in the latter case , the coefficients do not need to be all positive for there to be a threshold , however it is necessary that @xmath76 , where @xmath77 is a positive number that depends on the incoming momentum . thresholds for negative coefficients have been investigated previously  @xcite and there are strong limits on the lv coefficients . ) neutrino splitting is forbidden for superluminal neutrinos in the case @xmath78 studied e.g.  in @xcite . although the model presented in @xcite does not have an eft description , a simple threshold computation under the assumption of energy - momentum conservation and equal values of masses and lv parameters for neutrinos and antineutrinos shows that if neutrino splitting is possible also in that framework , values @xmath79 can be probed by @xmath80 neutrinos . ] however , for uhe neutrinos it is more difficult to extract constraints , as we shall discuss in section  [ sec : notsogood ] . neutrinos created in a flavor eigenstate are , of course , a combination of mass eigenstates . in order to maximize the neutrino splitting signal one would want _ all _ mass eigenstates to split ( `` flavor blind '' scenario ) . the best case scenario is therefore when @xmath81 for each @xmath42 and each @xmath43 is of the same order of magnitude ( so all states begin to decay at the same energy ) . as our best case scenario then we take @xmath43 equal and positive for all @xmath42 . let us now consider , within the above  flavor blind scenario " , energies well above threshold so that neutrinos do effectively split , and the best case combination of the @xmath43 . the splitting rate can be calculated from the neutrino width @xmath82 where the sum runs over the open splitting channels and @xmath83 represents the partial width for the channel @xmath84 . @xmath83 is simply @xmath85 where @xmath86 represents the phase space of the final states and @xmath87 the matrix element for the process . the dominant channel for neutrino splitting is via the tree level neutral current interaction . the matrix element for this interaction is @xmath88 where @xmath89 is the charged current electro - weak coupling constant , @xmath90 is the usual spin projector , @xmath91 is the weinberg angle and @xmath92 represent the 4-momentum components of the @xmath93 boson . @xmath94 and @xmath95 are the spinors associated with @xmath55 and @xmath56 , their functional form can be found in  @xcite . @xmath96 is at most the order of @xmath97 and hence for any incoming momenta @xmath98 @xmath99 . after some brute force algebra , we end with @xmath100 where @xmath101 is the angle between incoming and outgoing @xmath55 and @xmath102 is a complicated function of @xmath101 . the phase space , @xmath103 is given by @xmath104    we integrate over @xmath105 and we are left with @xmath106    substituting @xmath107 and @xmath103 back into ( [ eq : partialwidth ] ) we have @xmath108    we now turn to estimating the size of the remaining integral well above threshold , as uhe neutrinos are far in excess of the neutrino splitting threshold around 20 tev . temporarily , we will set @xmath109 and re - insert it at the end . we first assume that the opening angle for all three neutrinos is roughly equal , as is true over most of phase space . in this case , @xmath102 can be approximated as @xmath110 . the opening angle @xmath101 vanishes as @xmath111 , and is small even for uhe neutrinos . @xmath102 then reduces to @xmath112 . indeed , @xmath101 is given by the typical transverse momenta @xmath113 divided by the longitudinal momenta @xmath114 . the characteristic size of @xmath113 can be estimated by energy conservation , recognizing that when energy is conserved any `` excess '' energy from lv goes into the energy needed to create transverse momenta . formally this implies that @xmath115 i.e. @xmath116 . @xmath114 itself for any particle can range from almost 0 to almost the initial energy @xmath117 well above threshold . the available phase space volume for the remaining outgoing particles can therefore be approximated ( although somewhat overestimated ) as a cylinder with length @xmath117 and radius @xmath118 , which has a total volume of @xmath119 . similarly , @xmath101 can be estimated as @xmath120 . the @xmath121-function in energy simply removes one factor of energy from our equation . putting these expressions back into ( [ eq : partialwidth2 ] ) we find @xmath122 or , simplified @xmath123 where we used @xmath124 . if we now want to restore the @xmath125 factor , we notice that we must put one @xmath125 for each @xmath126 . in the end , the total rate is computed by adding the partial rates for each neutrino flavor , which is equivalent to multiply by 3 . hence , we have @xmath127 this width can be turned into a decay length as @xmath128    this makes clear we need to push the required energies above @xmath129 ( with @xmath130 ) for the rate to be appreciable . as a final remark , we notice that the decay length in eq . ( [ eq : nudeclength ] ) strongly depends on both the energy and @xmath1 . therefore , the error about its actual magnitude we might have made in our estimate will reflect in very small errors in the determination of the energy at which lv effects start to be relevant as well as of the constraint on @xmath1 .      at such high energies the z could be real - i.e.  there is a resonance in the matrix element . even in this regime , however , the neutrino decay time can be computed easily , as the only hypothesis one has to relax is that the z 4-momentum @xmath131 satisfies @xmath99 . the magnitude of @xmath96 can be easily computed exploiting the kinematic equations . we obtain @xmath132 . the final decay length is then @xmath133~.   \label{eq : clength}\ ] ]    a comparison between the two different decay lengths , eq . ( [ eq : nudeclength ] ) and eq . ( [ eq : clength ] ) , can be found in fig . [ fig : declength ] . the z resonance is hit at @xmath134 .    ) /red dashed line ) , and with ( eq .  ( [ eq : clength])/black solid line ) the z boson resonance . ]    we notice that even though the two computations lead to very different results above the resonance , they will not lead to any appreciable effect in the neutrino spectra , as at such energies the decay lengths are anyway much smaller than the propagation distance of cosmological neutrinos .      in the flavor blind case above every mass eigenstate undergoes splitting . it is easy to construct a scenario where only one mass eigenstate decays - one eigenstate has a positive @xmath135 lv coefficient while the other two have no lv . while this is unnatural in some sense , it serves as a nice example to illuminate a method to easily hide lv . the neutrino spectrum produced by the gzk process has a distinct distribution in flavor states of 1/3 @xmath136 and 2/3 @xmath137 . therefore , in order to calculate a spectrum with lv we need to convert this flavor spectrum into a mass spectrum , i.e. we need to choose a neutrino mixing model . for our purposes we choose tribimaximal mixing  @xcite , which satisfies current experimental constraints and provides a simple mixing matrix . with tribimaximal mixing the gzk neutrino spectrum has equal distribution over all mass eigenstates . now that we have spelled out out test models we shall proceed discussing the results for both scenarios . the net effect of neutrino splitting is very simple . it kills one neutrino of energy @xmath138 and creates 3 neutrinos of average energy @xmath139 , provided the parent neutrino is above threshold and has a reasonable life time . as we showed in sec . [ sec : computation ] , for a life time shorter than the age of the universe , the neutrino energy has to be above @xmath129 , i.e.  we need to probe uhe neutrinos . the effects of neutrino splitting on the uhe neutrino spectrum are twofold and can be understood qualitatively as follows . flux suppression at uh energies : :    the splitting is effectively an energy loss process for uhe neutrinos . if the rate is sufficiently high , the energy loss length can be below    1 mpc . let us call @xmath140 the energy at which    this happens . then , being gzk neutrinos produced mainly at distances    larger than 1 mpc , we do not expect any neutrino to be detected at    earth with @xmath141 .    +    the mere observation of neutrinos up to a certain energy    @xmath142 would imply a constraint , according to    eq . [ eq : nudeclength ] @xmath143 flux enhancement at sub - uh energies : :    neutrinos lose energy by producing lower energy neutrinos . eventually    these neutrinos will become stable , either because their energy is    below threshold , or because their lifetime is larger than their    propagation time . accordingly , we expect an enhancement of the    neutrino flux at energies below    @xmath144 .    in spite of being qualitatively straightforward , however , this analysis is not powerful enough to provide us with constraints on lv . in order to obtain meaningful constraints , we have to resort to full montecarlo simulations of the uhecr propagation from sources to the earth . we simulated then the propagation of uhecr protons in the inter galactic medium using the monte carlo package crpropa  @xcite , suitably modified to take into account lv in the neutrino sector . the simulation parameters are the following : we simulated unidimensional uhecr proton propagation , with source energy spectrum @xmath145 , from a spatially uniform distribution of sources located at redshift @xmath146 according to the waxman & bahcall ( wb ) distribution used in @xcite . the injection proton spectrum was tuned to fit auger data @xcite . figure  [ fig : spectra_eta ] shows the outcome of the simulations for different values of the lv parameter @xmath125 in the best case scenario , together with experimental sensitivities from some existing and planned observatories , as well as the waxman & bahcall bound @xcite for reference .- rays , in the hypothesis that the sources are optically thin to the escape of uhe particles and that both @xmath147-rays and neutrinos are originated from uhecr interactions with radiation backgrounds . it is worth mentioning that this bound might be strongly affected by qg effects , as shown in @xcite . ] results are in agreement with qualitative expectations previously discussed : above a certain energy the neutrino spectrum displays a sharp cut off , while at lower energy a peak appears . the peak position and strength , as well as the position of the cut off , depend on the value of the lv parameter @xmath125 . if @xmath130 the peak is found at @xmath148 and overwhelms the li spectrum by a factor of roughly 10 , while the cut off energy is at @xmath149 . also the evolution of the neutrino spectra with @xmath125 can be seen in the same fig . [ fig : spectra_eta ] . although at present it is not possible to draw firm conclusions for the constraints on lv in the neutrino sector , we notice that future experiments , if not already auger , will be able to probe the fluxes we predict , hence they will be able to cast constraints on @xmath125 . in the future , the arianna experiment @xcite will be able to probe fluxes down to @xmath150 in the energy range @xmath151 in the full configuration @xcite . if such a sensitivity will be achieved , a constraint of order @xmath5 will be cast , according to fig . [ fig : spectra_eta ] . moreover , the iceray experiment @xcite planned at the south pole is expected to observe roughly 4 neutrino events per year of data taking for the wb model preferentially studied here , in the range @xmath152 @xcite . hence , constraints of order @xmath153 are expected after few years of data taking by this experiment . we finally notice here that by exploiting this strategy nothing can be said about the case @xmath154 . if only one mass eigenstate decays , the energy momentum conservation equations , rates , and lifetimes all remain the same . we therefore can apply our montecarlo spectrum for this scenario to just any one of the mass eigenstates ( given our assumption of tribimaximal mixing no neutrino mass eigenstate is preferred ) . the only difference is that only 1/3 of the total flux undergoes neutrino splitting . the resulting spectrum is shown in fig . [ fig : onemasssplits ] . note that even for @xmath155 the departure from the li spectrum is significantly reduced , as one would expect , with the magnitude of the deviation at the peak being lowered to a @xmath156 excess over the li flux . hence , with present sensitivity , absence of a signal in the neutrino spectrum does not mean that lv is ruled out for neutrinos , even for @xmath2 positive coefficients . we notice that the cutoff feature present in the flavor blind case has now effectively disappeared . then , observations of a uhe neutrino flux up to some maximal energy do not allow to draw conclusions about lv in this case scenario . we now return to the question of negative coefficients and neutrino splitting . so far , in both our flavor blind and flavor dependent scenarios all the coefficients have been positive . as argued in section  [ sec : nusplitting ] , neutrinos can split even with negative coefficients when the relation @xmath76 holds . however , one can immediately see that therefore at least one of the mass eigenstates is always stable if the coefficients are negative . this implies that no equivalent of the  best case scenario " ( all the mass eigenstates decay ) is possible for negative @xmath43 and that , consequently , the deviation from the li spectrum will be suppressed by at least 1/3 . therefore cosmogenic neutrinos are not effective probes of the @xmath157 region of parameter space . predictions of cosmogenic neutrino spectra are known to be plagued by several uncertainties , as they depend strongly on the evolution of uhecr sources with redshift , which can not be directly probed with uhecrs due to the gzk attenuation effect . as a consequence , also our predictions for the uhe neutrino flux in the presence of lv can be affected . we check this by simulating different uhecr sources evolution models for the  best case scenario " . in fig . [ fig : max ] we show the results for the model outlined in @xcite , which is expected to give the largest flux .    as a result , the presence and the strength of the bump feature are demonstrated to be weakly dependent on the underlying uhecr source distribution , with the choice of the source distribution affecting by a factor of 2 the height of the bump . this was somewhat expected from our qualitative considerations : as long as uhecr sources are located at distances much larger than 1 mpc from earth , the magnitude of the bump depends only on how many neutrinos were originally produced at energy larger than the lv cutoff energy . on the other hand , the cutoff feature is definitely model independent , as long as the unknown maximal energy at which uhecrs are accelerated is enough to produce neutrinos at energy larger than @xmath158 . as we mentioned in the previous sections , there are other processes , besides splitting , leading to neutrinos losing energy in the inter - galactic medium . in particular , the hadronic decay modes of the z@xmath159 could lead to the production of uhe protons , thereby mimicking a `` z - burst '' effect @xcite . although this model was conceived for other purposes than constraining lv , and has now lost most of its attraction due to experimental results on proton spectra above the gzk threshold , it is notable that the same mechanism could in principle help constrain lv in the neutrino sector . however , we can argue with a very simple argument that this is not the case . let us consider the li neutrino flux , which corresponds in fig . [ fig : spectra_eta ] to the @xmath160 case . the minimal process leading to proton production in this context is @xmath161 , whose threshold energy , if @xmath130 , is at @xmath162 . processes involving more particles are naturally suppressed , however they represent the majority of the allowed channels and hence they might be relevant to our case . even if we do not know the energy spectrum of the produced protons , we know that their mean energy is roughly 1/80 times the energy of the parent neutrino @xcite . we can then compute the maximal expected flux of uhecrs produced by this z - burst - like mechanism by converting all the neutrinos with energy @xmath163 above threshold into 2 protons of energy @xmath164 . the result is shown in fig . [ fig : zburst ] . this mechanism would indeed contribute to the uhecr spectrum at @xmath165 , producing an excess no larger than 5% , which however is below the systematic uncertainties of uhecr experiments . therefore , no constraints on lv can be implied using this technique . electron / positron pair production would also contribute to the cutoff in the neutrino spectrum . the threshold for pair production of electrons is at roughly @xmath166 ev . at energies near the existing neutrino splitting cutoff , @xmath167 ev we are well above threshold . the mass of the electrons is therefore irrelevant in calculating the decay rate ( just as the neutrino mass was ) and hence the electron pair production process has nearly the same rate as the neutrino splitting process . if neutrinos produce electron / positron pairs ( which after all depends on lv in the electron sector ) it can only increase the steepness of the cutoff . it will not contribute to the excess neutrino flux at @xmath168 ev and hence one needs to probe energies one order of magnitude larger than @xmath169 to derive constraints exploiting the presence or the absence of a cutoff feature . in this work we have investigated possible signals of higher dimension lv cpt even operators in the uhe neutrino spectrum , in particular the effect of the neutrino splitting on the uhe neutrino spectrum . this process provides a clean test as it does not involve other lv operators apart from the neutrinos ones . in addition , since the dominant neutrino field is left - handed , there are no complications due to different lv for different chirality of fermion , as there are in the uhecr case , and one ends up with one lv coefficient for each neutrino mass eigenstate . in the flavor blind scenario , where every mass eigenstate undergoes splitting approximately at the same energy , there is both a precocious fall off of the neutrino flux at uhe as well as a significant excess in the uhe neutrino flux at energies as low as @xmath168 ev . noticeably , this kind of energies are well within reach of current and future uhecr experiments and about order of magnitude below those so far used for lv tests with hadronic and electromagnetic uhecrs . according to our study , existing or planned uhe neutrino experiments have the potential to probe lv in the neutrino sector for coefficients @xmath170 . however , we have discovered a serious difficulty with deriving constraints in the absence of a positive lv signal event . the distribution in mass eigenstates is roughly equal for uhe neutrinos in realistic mixing scenarios . although it might seem somewhat unnatural that lv has different effects on different mass states of the same particle field , if this is the case then it is possible that lv can exist / be strong for one mass eigenstate yet be almost invisible for uhe neutrino detectors . in particular , the observation of a neutrino flux up to some maximal energy does not imply a firm conclusion on lv , at least with present accuracy . however , let us note that if a neutrino is ever detected at energy @xmath163 , we can rule out a flavor blind @xmath171 according to eq . ( [ eq : constraint_naive ] ) . on the other hand , the bump feature can lead to constraints on @xmath172 , as this bump should be observable in any such scenario of lv in the neutrino sector . in this case , to obtain a @xmath2 constraint on lv requires at least a 50% accuracy in the determination of the neutrino spectrum in the energy range @xmath173 , which can be achieved by future experiments . we thank j.  kelley and b.  mcelrath for useful discussions . this work was supported by the deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft through the collaborative research centre sfb 676 `` particles , strings and the early universe : the structure of matter and space - time '' . lm acknowledges support from the state of hamburg , through the collaborative research program `` connecting particles with the cosmos '' within the framework of the landesexzellenzinitiative ( lexi ) . 999 v.  a.  kostelecky and s.  samuel , `` spontaneous breaking of lorentz symmetry in string theory , '' phys . d * 39 * , 683 ( 1989 ) . j.  r.  ellis , n.  e.  mavromatos and d.  v.  nanopoulos , phys . b * 665 * , 412 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0804.3566 [ hep - th ] ] . r.  gambini and j.  pullin , `` nonstandard optics from quantum spacetime , '' phys . d * 59 * , 124021 ( 1999 ) . c.  rovelli and s.  speziale , phys . d * 67 * , 064019 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : gr - qc/0205108 ] . j.  alfaro and g.  palma , phys . d * 67 * ( 2003 ) 083003 [ arxiv : hep - th/0208193 ] . s.  m.  carroll , j.  a.  harvey , v.  a.  kostelecky , c.  d.  lane and t.  okamoto , `` noncommutative field theory and lorentz violation , '' phys . lett .  * 87 * , 141601 ( 2001 ) . [ arxiv : hep - th/0105082 ] . j.  lukierski , h.  ruegg and w.  j.  zakrzewski , annals phys . * 243 * ( 1995 ) 90 [ arxiv : hep - th/9312153 ] . g.  amelino - camelia and s.  majid , int . j.  mod . phys .   a * 15 * ( 2000 ) 4301 [ arxiv : hep - th/9907110 ] . m.  chaichian , p.  p.  kulish , k.  nishijima and a.  tureanu , phys . b * 604 * , 98 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/0408069 ] . g.  amelino - camelia , j.  r.  ellis , n.  e.  mavromatos , d.  v.  nanopoulos and s.  sarkar , `` potential sensitivity of gamma - ray burster observations to wave dispersion in vacuo , '' nature * 393 * , 763 ( 1998 ) . [ arxiv : astro - ph/9712103 ] . c.  p.  burgess , j.  cline , e.  filotas , j.  matias and g.  d.  moore , `` loop - generated bounds on changes to the graviton dispersion relation , '' jhep * 0203 * , 043 ( 2002 ) . [ arxiv : hep - ph/0201082 ] . c.  barcelo , s.  liberati and m.  visser , _ `` analogue gravity , '' _ living rev . * 8 * , 12 ( 2005 ) . [ arxiv : gr - qc/0505065 ] . horava , phys . d * 79 * , 084008 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0901.3775 [ hep - th ] ] . g.  amelino - camelia , arxiv:0806.0339 [ gr - qc ] . g.  amelino - camelia , int . j.  mod . d * 11 * ( 2002 ) 35 [ arxiv : gr - qc/0012051 ] . d.  colladay and v.  a.  kostelecky , phys . d * 58 * , 116002 ( 1998 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9809521 ] . r.  c.  myers and m.  pospelov , phys .  rev . * 90 * ( 2003 ) 211601 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0301124 ] . p.  a.  bolokhov and m.  pospelov , phys . d * 77 * , 025022 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0703291 ] . d.  mattingly , pos * qg - ph * , 026 ( 2007 ) . v.  a.  kostelecky and m.  mewes , phys .  rev . d * 80 * ( 2009 ) 015020 [ arxiv:0905.0031 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  groot nibbelink and m.  pospelov , phys . lett .   * 94 * , 081601 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0404271 ] . d.  mattingly , living rev . * 8 * , 5 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : gr - qc/0502097 ] . t.  jacobson , s.  liberati and d.  mattingly , annals phys . * 321 * ( 2006 ) 150 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0505267 ] . s.  liberati and l.  maccione , arxiv:0906.0681 [ astro-ph.he ] . to appear in annual review of nuclear and particle science . j.  collins , a.  perez , d.  sudarsky , l.  urrutia and h.  vucetich , phys . lett .   * 93 * , 191301 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : gr - qc/0403053 ] . l.  maccione , a.  m.  taylor , d.  m.  mattingly and s.  liberati , jcap * 0904 * ( 2009 ) 022 [ arxiv:0902.1756 [ astro-ph.he ] ] . m.  galaverni and g.  sigl , phys . , * 100 * , 021102 ( 2008 ) . arxiv:0708.1737 [ astro - ph ] . l.  maccione and s.  liberati , jcap * 0808 * , 027 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0805.2548 [ astro - ph ] ] . m.  galaverni and g.  sigl , phys . d * 78 * ( 2008 ) 063003 [ arxiv:0807.1210 [ astro - ph ] ] . t.  kifune , astrophys . j.   * 518 * ( 1999 ) l21 [ arxiv : astro - ph/9904164 ] . r.  aloisio , p.  blasi , p.  l.  ghia and a.  f.  grillo , phys . d * 62 * ( 2000 ) 053010 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0001258 ] . g.  amelino - camelia and t.  piran , phys . d * 64 * ( 2001 ) 036005 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0008107 ] . f.  w.  stecker and s.  t.  scully , astropart . * 23 * ( 2005 ) 203 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0412495 ] . l.  gonzalez - mestres , nucl . suppl .   * 190 * , 191 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0902.0994 [ astro-ph.he ] ] . s.  t.  scully and f.  w.  stecker , astropart . phys .   * 31 * ( 2009 ) 220 [ arxiv:0811.2230 [ astro - ph ] ] . f.  w.  stecker and s.  t.  scully , new j.  phys . * 11 * ( 2009 ) 085003 [ arxiv:0906.1735 [ astro-ph.he ] ] . t.  jacobson , s.  liberati and d.  mattingly , phys . d * 67 * ( 2003 ) 124011 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0209264 ] . l.  maccione , s.  liberati , a.  celotti and j.  g.  kirk , jcap * 0710 * ( 2007 ) 013 [ arxiv:0707.2673 [ astro - ph ] ] . amsler  w.  m. _ et al . _  [ particle data group ] phys . b * 667 * , 1 ( 2008 ) . s.  r.  coleman and s.  l.  glashow , phys . d * 59 * ( 1999 ) 116008 [ arxiv : hep - ph/9812418 ] . m.  c.  gonzalez - garcia , f.  halzen and m.  maltoni , phys . d * 71 * , 093010 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0502223 ] . j.  s.  diaz , v.  a.  kostelecky and m.  mewes , phys . d * 80 * , 076007 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0908.1401 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  yang and b.  q.  ma , arxiv:0910.0897 [ hep - ph ] . m.  c.  gonzalez - garcia and f.  halzen , jcap * 0702 * ( 2007 ) 008 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0611359 ] . a.  bhattacharya , s.  choubey , r.  gandhi and a.  watanabe , arxiv:0910.4396 [ hep - ph ] . s.  r.  coleman and s.  l.  glashow , phys . b * 405 * ( 1997 ) 249 [ arxiv : hep - ph/9703240 ] . p.  gorham _ et al . _ [ anita collaboration ] , arxiv:0812.2715 [ astro - ph ] . a.  petrolini , arxiv:0909.5220 [ astro-ph.im ] . a.  santangelo and a.  petrolini , arxiv:0909.5370 [ astro-ph.he ] . s.  w.  barwick , j.  phys . * 60 * ( 2007 ) 276 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0610631 ] . s.  w.  barwick , nucl . instrum . a * 602 * ( 2009 ) 279 . p.  allison _ et al . arxiv:0904.1309 [ astro-ph.he ] . v.  s.  beresinsky and g.  t.  zatsepin , phys . b * 28 * ( 1969 ) 423 . f.  w.  stecker , astrophys . space sci . * 20 * ( 1973 ) 47 . r.  engel , d.  seckel and t.  stanev , phys . d * 64 * ( 2001 ) 093010 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0101216 ] . d.  v.  semikoz and g.  sigl , jcap * 0404 * ( 2004 ) 003 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0309328 ] . k.  greisen , phys . * 16 * ( 1966 ) 748 ; zatsepin , kuzmin , sov.phys.jetp 4 , 78 . r.  abbasi _ et al . _ [ hires collaboration ] , arxiv : astro - ph/0703099 . m.  roth [ pierre auger collaboration ] , arxiv:0706.2096 [ astro - ph ] . j.  abraham _ et al . _ [ pierre auger collaboration ] , science * 318 * ( 2007 ) 938 [ arxiv:0711.2256 [ astro - ph ] ] . t.  jacobson and d.  mattingly , phys . d * 70 * ( 2004 ) 024003 [ arxiv : gr - qc/0402005 ] . d.  mattingly , t.  jacobson and s.  liberati , phys . d * 67 * ( 2003 ) 124012 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0211466 ] . t.  j.  konopka and s.  a.  major , new j.  phys .   * 4 * , 57 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0201184 ] . j.  m.  carmona and j.  l.  cortes , phys . b * 494 * ( 2000 ) 75 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0007057 ] . e.  armengaud , g.  sigl , t.  beau and f.  miniati , astropart . * 28 * ( 2007 ) 463 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0603675 ] . j.  n.  bahcall and e.  waxman , phys . b * 556 * ( 2003 ) 1 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0206217 ] . t.  p.  a.  collaboration , phys . d * 79 * ( 2009 ) 102001 [ arxiv:0903.3385 [ astro-ph.he ] ] . e.  waxman and j.  n.  bahcall , phys . d * 59 * ( 1999 ) 023002 [ arxiv : hep - ph/9807282 ] . j.  n.  bahcall and e.  waxman , phys . d * 64 * ( 2001 ) 023002 [ arxiv : hep - ph/9902383 ] . g.  amelino - camelia , m.  arzano , y.  j.  ng , t.  piran and h.  van dam , jcap * 0402 * ( 2004 ) 009 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0307027 ] . d.  fargion , b.  mele and a.  salis , astrophys . j.   * 517 * ( 1999 ) 725 [ arxiv : astro - ph/9710029 ] . r.  aloisio , v.  berezinsky , p.  blasi , a.  gazizov , s.  grigorieva and b.  hnatyk , astropart . * 27 * ( 2007 ) 76 [ arxiv : astro - ph/0608219 ] . p.  f.  harrison , d.  h.  perkins and w.  g.  scott , phys . b * 530 * ( 2002 ) 167 [ arxiv : hep - ph/0202074 ] .
Abstract:

Answer: we study , within an effective field theory framework , @xmath0 planck - scale suppressed lorentz invariance violation ( lv ) effects in the neutrino sector , whose size we parameterize by a dimensionless parameter @xmath1 . we find deviations from predictions of lorentz invariant physics in the cosmogenic neutrino spectrum . for positive @xmath2 coefficients no neutrino will survive above @xmath3 . the existence of this cutoff generates a bump in the neutrino spectrum at energies of @xmath4 . although at present no constraint can be cast , as current experiments do not have enough sensitivity to detect ultra - high - energy neutrinos , we show that experiments in construction or being planned have the potential to cast limits as strong as @xmath5 on the neutrino lv parameter , depending on how lv is distributed among neutrino mass states . constraints on @xmath6 can in principle be obtained with this strategy , but they require a more detailed modeling of how lv affects the neutrino sector .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: distribution of licensed digital content ( e.g. , software , movies , music etc . ) has become increasingly popular in recent times . with this comes the need to protect the copyright of the distributor against unauthorized redistribution of the content ( _ piracy _ ) .    to introduce the problem , we begin with an informal description . suppose the distributor has some content which he would like to distribute among a set of licensed users . one can think of a simple scheme where each licensed copy is identified by a unique mark ( _ fingerprint _ ) which is embedded in the content and is imperceptible to the users of the system . note that the distributed copies are identical except for the fingerprints . if a naive user distributes a copy of his fingerprinted content , then the pirated copy can easily be traced back to the guilty user and hence he will be exposed . tracing the guilty user becomes more difficult when a collection of users ( _ pirates _ ) form a _ coalition _ to detect the fingerprints and modify / erase them before illegally distributing the data . digital fingerprinting is a technique that assigns to each user a mark in a way that enables the distributor to identify at least one of the members of the coalition as long as its size does not exceed a certain threshold @xmath5 , which is a parameter of the problem . there are two main setups considered for the fingerprinting problem in the literature . the _ distortion _ setting is commonly used in applications relating to multimedia fingerprinting @xcite . in this model , the fingerprint is usually a `` covert signal '' which is superimposed on the original `` host '' data in such a way that the difference , or distortion , between the original and the fingerprinted copies is smaller than some threshold . the coalitions are restricted to creating a forgery which has distortion less than some threshold from at least one of the colluders fingerprinted copies . on the other hand , we have the _ marking assumption _ setting introduced in @xcite which will be our main interest in this paper . in this case , the fingerprint is a set of redundant digits which are distributed in some random positions ( unknown to the users ) across the information digits of the original content . the fingerprint positions remain the same for all users . it is assumed that these redundant digits do not affect the functionality of the content , while tampering with an information digit damages the content permanently . the motivation for this assumption comes from applications to software fingerprinting , where modifying arbitrary digits can damage its functionality . the coalition attempts to discover some of the fingerprint positions by comparing their marked copies for differences . if they find a difference in some position , it is guaranteed to be a redundant fingerprint digit . in the other positions , it could be either an information digit or a fingerprint digit . the _ marking assumption _ states that the coalitions may modify only those positions where they find a difference in their fingerprinted copies . hence , in analyzing this model , it becomes sufficient to just look at the fingerprint positions and ignore the information digits . the collection of fingerprints distributed to all the users of the system together with the strategy of decoding ( pirate identification ) used is called a _ code _ below . a code is said to be _ @xmath5-fingerprinting _ or _ collusion - secure _ against coalitions of @xmath5 pirates if the error probability of decoding approaches 0 as the code length tends to @xmath6    collusion - secure fingerprinting codes were introduced by boneh and shaw @xcite . it was shown in @xcite that for any single deterministic code , the probability of decoding error in the `` wide - sense '' formulation ( see section [ sect : cap - def ] ) is bounded away from zero . hence , it becomes necessary for the distributor to use some form of randomization , where the random key is known only to the distributor , in order to construct such fingerprinting codes . this paper also gave the first example of codes with vanishing error probability . further general constructions were proposed by barg et al . @xcite and tardos @xcite . the case of zero error probability was considered independently by hollmann et al . @xcite who termed them as codes with the _ identifiable parent property _ , or ipp codes . they were further studied in @xcite among others .    in this paper , we are interested in computing the fundamental limits of the fingerprinting problem , i.e. , in establishing bounds on the capacity ( or maximum attainable rate ) of fingerprinting codes . we denote by @xmath7 the capacity of fingerprinting with @xmath8-ary codes against coalitions of size @xmath5 ( this quantity is defined formally later in the paper ) . the problem of determining the fingerprinting capacity was raised in @xcite . to date , only some lower bounds are known through constructions and existence results : @xmath9 @xcite ; @xmath10 @xcite ; @xmath11 @xcite . new capacity bounds of our paper are based on an information - theoretic view of the fingerprinting problem . they are established as follows . attainability results ( lower bounds ) are shown by random coding techniques which take into account the typical coalitions , i.e. , the coalitions that occur with high probability . this represents a new idea in fingerprinting which enables us to improve random choice arguments of various kinds used earlier in @xcite . for upper bounds we model fingerprinting as a multi - user communications channel a converse theorem for a transmission scenario that models some aspects of the fingerprinting problem is proved to establish an upper bound on the capacity of fingerprinting . it should be noted that a similar information - theoretic approach to finding the capacity of fingerprinting was previously studied in @xcite and @xcite . in @xcite , the authors obtain upper and lower bounds on the capacity of fingerprinting with distortion constraints as opposed to the marking assumption setting of this paper . paper @xcite uses the marking assumption setting , but it addresses a simpler problem whose results do not directly apply to fingerprinting . the rest of the paper is organized as follows . in section [ sect : cap - def ] , we recall the statement of the fingerprinting problem and give an information - theoretic formulation . we also prove several results related to the problem statement that justify various techniques used to derive bounds on the fingerprinting capacity later in the paper . in particular , lower bounds on @xmath12 are proved in section [ sect : cap - lb2 ] . sections [ sect : cap - ub - w ] and [ sect : cap - ub - s ] are devoted to upper bounds on @xmath7 for arbitrary @xmath13 and their specializations for @xmath14 in the case of the binary alphabet . random variables ( r.v.s ) will be denoted by capital letters and their realizations by low - case letters . the probability distribution of a r.v . @xmath15 will be denoted by @xmath16 if @xmath15 and @xmath17 are independent r.v.s , then their joint distribution is written as @xmath18 for positive integers @xmath19 @xmath20 will denote the collection of r.v.s @xmath21 and the shorthand @xmath22 $ ] will be used to denote the set @xmath23 boldface will denote vectors of length @xmath24 for example , @xmath25 denotes a vector @xmath26 and @xmath27 denotes a random vector @xmath28 the hamming distance between vectors @xmath29 will be written as @xmath30 we will denote the binary entropy function by @xmath31 and @xmath32 will represent the indicator function . let @xmath33 denote an alphabet of ( finite ) size @xmath34 let @xmath35 be the number of users in the system and let @xmath36 denote the length of the fingerprints . assume that there is some ordering of the users and denote their set by @xmath37 . let @xmath38 be a finite set whose size may depend on @xmath24 elements of the set @xmath38 will be called keys . for every @xmath39 let @xmath40 be an @xmath36-length _ code _ , i.e. , a pair of encoding and decoding mappings : @xmath41 @xmath42 where the decoder output 0 will signify a decoding failure . by definition , the fingerprinting system is formed by a _ randomized code _ , i.e. , a random variable @xmath43 taking values in the family @xmath44 . note that the dependence on @xmath36 has been suppressed in this notation for simplicity . the _ rate _ of this code is @xmath45 . the system operates as follows . the distributor chooses a key @xmath46 according to a probability distribution @xmath47 on @xmath38 and assigns the fingerprint @xmath48 to user @xmath49 . on receiving a forged fingerprint , the distributor uses the tracing strategy @xmath50 ( corresponding to the selected key ) to determine one of the guilty users . we need randomization because : ( a ) deterministic fingerprinting codes do not exist in certain formulations @xcite , and ( b ) we allow the family of encoders and decoders and the distribution @xmath47 to be known to all users of the system . the only advantage the distributor has is the knowledge of the particular key being used . this assumption follows the accepted standards of cryptographic systems where it is usually assumed that the encryption / decryption algorithms are publicly available and that the only parameter kept secret by the system s constructor is the key . the fingerprints are assumed to be distributed inside the host message so that its location is unknown to the users . the location of the fingerprints , however , remains the same for all users . a _ coalition _ @xmath51 of @xmath5 users is an arbitrary @xmath5-subset of @xmath52 following accepted usage , we will refer to the members of the coalition as `` pirates '' . the coalition observes the collection of their fingerprints @xmath53 and attempts to create a fingerprint @xmath54 that does not enable the distributor to trace it back to any of the users in @xmath51 . note that although the fingerprint locations are not available to the pirates , they may attempt to detect some of these locations by comparing their copies for differences . thus , coordinate @xmath49 of the fingerprints is called _ undetectable _ for the coalition @xmath51 if @xmath55 and is called _ detectable _ otherwise . the _ marking assumption _ states that for any fingerprint @xmath56 created by the coalition @xmath51 , @xmath57 in every coordinate @xmath58 that is undetectable .    in other words , in creating @xmath56 , the pirates can modify only detectable positions .    for a given set of observed fingerprints @xmath59 the set of forgeries that can be created by the coalition is called the _ envelope_. its definition depends on the exact rule the coalition should follow to modify the detectable positions :    * if the coalition is restricted to use only a symbol from their assigned fingerprints in the detectable positions , we obtain the _ narrow - sense envelope _ : @xmath60 * if the coalition can use any symbol from the alphabet in the detectable positions , we obtain the _ wide - sense envelope _ : @xmath61    we remark that there are further generalizations of the rules above where coalitions are also allowed to erase the symbols in detectable positions . this generalization is not considered below ; we refer the interested reader to @xcite . in the following , we will use @xmath62 to denote the envelope from any of the rules or their generalizations mentioned above . [ rem : intro - bin ] the definition for a fingerprinting code depends on the envelope considered . therefore , different problems can arise for each definition of the envelope . the binary alphabet is of special interest because of its wide use in practical digital applications . for this special case , it is easy to see that the narrow - sense and wide - sense envelopes are exactly the same . suppose that the coalition @xmath51 uses a randomized strategy @xmath63 to create the new fingerprint , where @xmath64 gives the probability that the coalition creates @xmath56 given that it observes the fingerprints @xmath65 . a strategy @xmath66 is called admissible if @xmath67 let @xmath68 denote the class of admissible strategies . such randomized strategies model any general attack the coalition is capable of and also facilitate mathematical analysis . the distributor , on observing the suspect fingerprint @xmath56 , uses the decoder @xmath50 while using the key @xmath46 . then the probability of error for a given coalition @xmath51 and strategy @xmath66 averaged over the family of codes is defined as follows : @xmath69 where @xmath70 is the expectation with respect to the distribution @xmath71    [ def : cap - fingcode ] a randomized code @xmath43 is said to be @xmath5-_fingerprinting with @xmath72-error _ if @xmath73      we now formulate the fingerprinting problem as a communications problem in which the set of messages is identified with the set of users of the fingerprinting system . each message is mapped to a codeword which corresponds to the fingerprint of the user . any set of @xmath5 messages ( a coalition ) may be chosen , and they are transmitted over an _ unknown _ @xmath5-input - single - output channel defined by the strategy of the coalition . the class of possible channels will be defined by the marking assumption . the output of the channel ( that represents the strategy ) gives the forged fingerprint . the task of the decoder is to recover at least _ one _ of the transmitted messages to have produced the channel output . observe that this information - theoretic model differs from the traditional @xmath5-user multiple - access channel ( mac ) because : ( a ) the decoder makes an error only when its output does not match _ any of the transmitted messages _ , and ( b ) all channel inputs are required to use the same codebook .    for a given @xmath5-user strategy @xmath74 the _ maximum _ probability of error is given by @xmath75 note that here the users @xmath76 are not necessarily distinct . it is straightforward to see that the @xmath5-fingerprinting condition ( [ eqn : cap - fingdef ] ) can now be expressed as @xmath77    [ def : cap - capall ] for @xmath78 a number @xmath79 is an @xmath80-_achievable rate _ for @xmath8-ary @xmath5-fingerprinting if for every @xmath81 and every @xmath36 sufficiently large , there exists a randomized @xmath8-ary code @xmath43 of length @xmath36 with rate @xmath82 and maximum probability of error satisfying ( [ cap - eqn : maxpe ] ) . the @xmath80-_capacity _ of @xmath8-ary @xmath5-fingerprinting @xmath83 is the supremum of all such @xmath80-achievable rates . the _ capacity _ of @xmath8-ary @xmath5-fingerprinting is the infimum of the @xmath80-capacities for @xmath84 , i.e. , @xmath85 to proceed with the capacity @xmath86 we wish to consider coalitions of size exactly @xmath87 first , given any @xmath5-user strategy @xmath74  define the maximum probability of error corresponding to _ coalitions of size @xmath5 alone _ as @xmath88 the capacity value @xmath89 corresponding to the above criterion can be similarly defined . [ prop : cap - prop]@xmath90    clearly , @xmath91 the proof of the opposite inequality is also almost obvious because any coalition of @xmath5 pirates can simply ignore any subset of @xmath92 pirates when devising a forged fingerpint @xmath93 a formal version of this argument is provided by lemma a.1 in the appendix . similarly to the above , let us consider the _ average _ error probability @xmath94 ( this quantity will be used in the derivation of upper bounds on the capacity @xmath7 ) and the probability @xmath95 for coalitions of size exactly @xmath5 . define the capacity @xmath96 with respect to the latter error probability . we make a remark on the relation between the average and maximum error criteria . in general , it is true that the average error criterion yields a higher capacity value compared to the maximum one . however , when randomization is allowed , it is well - known for single - user channels that the capacity value is the same for both the maximum and average error probability criteria ( cf . e.g. , ( * ? ? ? we now extend this argument to the current context of multi - user channels and fingerprinting to show that both ( [ eqn : cap - maxpe2 ] ) and ( [ eqn : cap - avgpe2 ] ) lead to the same capacity value . [ prop : cap - rccap ] @xmath97    a formal proof is available in the appendix . it follows because here we simply use a randomized code @xmath43 , which also includes all @xmath98 permutations of any specific realization of @xmath43 . because of the symmetry introduced by this , the error probability @xmath99 is the same for all coalitions for a given @xmath66 , and hence the average and the maximum probability are the same . in this section , we construct fingerprinting codes for @xmath100 with error probability decaying exponentially in @xmath36 and with higher rate than previous constructions . the improvement is obtained by tailoring the decoder for the _ typical _ coalitions , i.e. , the coalitions that occur with high probability . we will say that an event occurs with high probability if the probability that it fails is at most @xmath101 where @xmath102 is a positive constant . our aim is to construct a sequence of randomized codes @xmath103 with error probability @xmath104 decaying to zero . by proposition [ prop : cap - prop ] , it suffices to consider only coalitions of size exactly @xmath5 . suppose , for every @xmath105 there exists a set @xmath106 such that for any coalition @xmath51 of size @xmath2 the observed fingerprints @xmath107 belong to @xmath108 with high probability . we will refer to a set with this property as a _ typical _ set . thus , in constructing the required code it suffices to study the conditions that allow us to obtain vanishing probability @xmath109 for any coalition @xmath51 of size @xmath2 any typical @xmath5-tuple @xmath110 of observed fingerprints , and any forgery @xmath111 as @xmath112 our first result is a lower bound on the fingerprinting capacity with 2 pirates over the binary alphabet . [ thm : cap - lb-2 ] @xmath113    fix @xmath114 suppose that the encoding mapping @xmath115 assigns @xmath116 fingerprints to the users choosing them uniformly and independently from all @xmath117 different vectors . for @xmath118 the fingerprints will be distinct with high probability .    given a small @xmath119 we define the typical set as the set of vector pairs which agree in @xmath120 positions , where @xmath121   .\ ] ] consider any two pirates @xmath122 and @xmath123 notice that their observed fingerprints form a typical pair @xmath124 with high probability for an arbitrarily small @xmath125 hence , @xmath124 agree in @xmath126 positions . to create a forged fingerprint @xmath56 the pirates must fill the remaining @xmath127 positions . let @xmath128 and @xmath129 then @xmath130 and therefore @xmath131 given a forgery @xmath132 the decoder only considers typical pairs @xmath124 from the codebook . namely , the decoder takes any pair of distances @xmath133 that satisfy ( [ eqn : cap - lb2 ] ) and constructs the full lists @xmath134 and @xmath135 of the fingerprints located at distances @xmath136 and @xmath137 from @xmath93 each pair @xmath138 is then discarded if they simultaneously disagree with @xmath56 in any position @xmath139 i.e. , @xmath140 all remaining pairs contain @xmath56 in their envelope . for each such pair @xmath141 the decoding is completed by choosing the pirate @xmath142 whose fingerprint @xmath143 has a smaller distance @xmath144 either user is chosen if @xmath145 . obviously , the fingerprints @xmath146 and @xmath147 that belong to the factual pirates will not be discarded by the above decoding algorithm . the following probabilistic analysis shows that for two innocent users , the decoder discards their observed fingerprints @xmath148 with high probability if the code rate @xmath149 indeed , for @xmath148 to be typical , they should agree in @xmath150 positions . in all these positions , @xmath151 should also agree with @xmath56 to fulfill the marking assumption . in each of the remaining @xmath127 positions , the vectors @xmath151 are represented by only two combinations , @xmath152 or @xmath153 the probability of choosing such a pair @xmath148 in our random code equals @xmath154 and has exponential order of @xmath155 for any @xmath156 furthermore , by the union bound , the total probability of choosing such a pair in a random code of size @xmath116 is at most @xmath157 this probability tends to @xmath158 exponentially fast for any rate @xmath159    similarly , consider a coalition @xmath160 that includes the fingerprint @xmath146 of an actual pirate and the fingerprint @xmath161 of an innocent user . recall that @xmath146 disagrees with @xmath56 in @xmath136 positions . then to be output instead of @xmath162 the fingerprint @xmath161 must agree with @xmath56 in these positions and disagree with it in another set of @xmath163 positions . the total probability of choosing such a fingerprint @xmath161 is at most @xmath164 since @xmath165 and @xmath163 , we have restriction @xmath166 in this case , the above probability tends to @xmath158 exponentially fast for any rate @xmath159 thus , at least one pirate will be chosen from each coalition , and with high probability , no remaining ( innocent ) users will be chosen as pirates . we note that considering typical coalitions enables us to improve the lower bound @xmath9 obtained in @xcite . next we establish a lower bound on the fingerprinting capacity with 3 pirates over the binary alphabet . [ thm : cap - lb-3 ] @xmath167    suppose again that the encoding mapping @xmath115 assigns @xmath116 fingerprints to the users choosing them uniformly and independently from all @xmath117 different vectors . for a triple @xmath168 let @xmath169:\;x_{1s}=x_{2s}=x_{3s}\},\]]@xmath170:\;x_{is}=x_{js}\},\hspace{0.5em}i , j=1,2,3,\hspace { 0.5em}i\neq j,\ ] ] and let @xmath171 , @xmath172 given a small @xmath173 we say that @xmath174 form a typical triple if @xmath175,\label{eqn : cap - lb3}\]]@xmath176.\label{eqn : cap - lb4}\ ] ] for any three users @xmath177 note that the observed fingerprints form a typical triple with high probability . using the same idea as before , we now take the observed fingerprints @xmath174 to be a typical triple . a forged fingerprint @xmath56 agrees with all the three fingerprints on @xmath178 and takes arbitrarily values @xmath179 on the remaining subset @xmath180\backslash\cl $ ] positions . let @xmath181 for @xmath182 note that every position in @xmath180\backslash\cl$ ] contributes 1 or 2 to the sum @xmath183 implying @xmath184    given a forged fingerprint @xmath132 the decoder considers only typical triples @xmath174 from the codebook . each triple is then discarded if the fingerprints in it simultaneously disagree with @xmath56 in any position @xmath139 i.e. , @xmath185 if a triple @xmath174 is left , decoding is completed by choosing the pirate whose fingerprint has the smallest distance to @xmath56 among @xmath186 . obviously , the fingerprints @xmath174 corresponding to the factual pirates will not be discarded by the decoder . the following probabilistic analysis shows that a randomly chosen code of rate @xmath187 enables the decoder to discard with high probability all typical triples @xmath188 of fingerprints formed by three innocent users . indeed , a typical triple can be identified only if the fingerprints in it simultaneously agree with @xmath56 in some subset of @xmath189 positions . to simplify our analysis in this case , we can even ignore the extra conditions ( [ eqn : cap - lb4 ] ) in any of the remaining @xmath127 positions . thus , we allow the vectors @xmath188 to take on any combination of binary symbols @xmath179 different from all zeros or all ones . given 6 such combinations , any typical triple is chosen with probability at most @xmath190 we further observe that the total probability of choosing such a triple in a random code of size @xmath116 equals @xmath191 and tends to @xmath158 exponentially fast for any rate @xmath192 . now consider a slightly more involved case when the decoder locates the pirate coalition @xmath174 along with another coalition @xmath193 that includes the fingerprint @xmath146 of an actual pirate and the fingerprints @xmath194 of two innocent users . in what follows , we prove that a random code of rate ( [ eqn : cap - lb6 ] ) satisfies at least one of the following two conditions :    * the decoder chooses @xmath146 in the coalition @xmath193 with high probability . * the coalition @xmath193 has vanishing probability . recall that @xmath195 then an innocent user , @xmath161 say , can be output by the decoder if @xmath196 . the probability that any such @xmath161 is chosen among @xmath35 random codewords is obviously at most @xmath197 given a code of rate ( [ eqn : cap - lb6 ] ) , this probability vanishes if @xmath198 therefore , condition ( i ) above fails if @xmath199 now let us consider condition ( ii ) given this restriction . consider a typical coalition @xmath200 we have @xmath201:\;x_{1s}=z_{2s}=z_{3s}=y_{s}\}|,\]]@xmath202:\;z_{2s}=z_{3s}\neq x_{1s}\}|\ ] ] thus , the vectors @xmath194 have fixed values on the one subset of size @xmath203 where these vectors are equal to @xmath146 , and on the other non - overlapping subset of size @xmath204 , where the vectors @xmath194 are equal to the binary complement of @xmath205 according to conditions ( [ eqn : cap - lb3 ] ) and ( [ eqn : cap - lb4 ] ) , @xmath189 and @xmath206 in the remaining @xmath207 positions we have @xmath208 summarizing the above arguments , we conclude that the total probability of choosing such vectors @xmath194 in the random code is bounded above as @xmath209 straightforward verification shows that this quantity vanishes given conditions ( [ eqn : cap - lb3 ] ) , ( [ eqn : cap - lb4 ] ) , and ( [ eqn : cap - lb7 ] ) for a code of rate @xmath210 thus a random code of smaller rate ( [ eqn : cap - lb6 ] ) discards all mixed coalitions of the form @xmath193 with high probability . the last remaining case , of a mixed coalition @xmath211 , is analyzed in a similar fashion ( the analysis is simpler than the one above and will be omitted ) . in finding upper bounds on fingerprinting capacity ( here and also in section [ sect : cap - ub - s ] ) , we restrict our attention to _ memoryless _ coalition strategies in order to make the problem tractable and to obtain single - letter expressions . any upper bound on the capacity thus obtained will be also valid in the original problem . let @xmath212 denote the family of discrete memoryless channels ( dmcs ) @xmath213 with @xmath5 inputs that satisfy the marking assumption for a single letter , i.e. , @xmath214 note that the above definition corresponds to the wide - sense envelope @xmath215 defined in ( [ eqn : intro - wenv ] ) . for the narrow - sense envelope @xmath216 ( [ eqn : intro - nenv ] ) and other variations of the problem it is possible to define similar communication channels and study their upper bounds on capacity .    observe that @xmath212 is a convex and compact set . let @xmath217 , called the `` state '' , be an index which identifies the particular @xmath218 . hence , we will often write @xmath219 for channels in @xmath212 .    we model a coalition s strategy by a ( discrete memoryless ) arbitrarily varying channel ( avc ) , i.e. , the state of the channel can vary from symbol to symbol . for a given state sequence @xmath220 , the channel is given by @xmath221 we denote the family of such channels @xmath222 by @xmath223    since the state sequence @xmath224 completely identifies the channel , we will use @xmath225 to denote the error probability in ( [ eqn : cap - avgpe ] ) . [ thm : cap - ub - w ] let @xmath43 be a @xmath8-ary @xmath5-fingerprinting code with @xmath80-error ( @xmath226 ) of length @xmath105 rate @xmath227 and @xmath228 keys , such that @xmath229 then @xmath230 where @xmath231 @xmath232 are @xmath8-ary r.v.s , @xmath233 @xmath234 is a r.v . taking values over a set of cardinality @xmath228 and satisfying the markov chain @xmath235 and the maximization is over joint distributions @xmath236{l}p_{k x_{1 } \dots x_{t } } = p_{k } \times p_{x_{1}|k } \times\dots\times p_{x_{t}|k}\\ \text{with } p_{x_{1}|k } = \dots= p_{x_{t}|k}. \end{array}\ ] ]    let @xmath38 be a set of keys and let @xmath237 be a family of codes with probability distribution @xmath47 over @xmath238 since @xmath43 is @xmath5-fingerprinting with @xmath80-error , it satisfies @xmath239 let @xmath240 be independent r.v.s uniformly distributed over the message set @xmath241 and let @xmath234 be a r.v . independent of @xmath242 and with probability distribution @xmath47 over @xmath38 . also , let @xmath243 fix some @xmath220 and let @xmath244 be such that @xmath245 . then , we have @xmath246 which follows from ( [ eqn : cap - perr ] ) . we also have the following markov chain @xmath247 now , @xmath248 because @xmath240 are independent and uniformly distributed over @xmath249 the second term in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w1 ] ) can be bounded above as follows . define @xmath250 @xmath251 let @xmath252 @xmath251 since @xmath253 are known given @xmath254 @xmath255 equation ( [ eq : h ] ) holds true because @xmath256 are binary r.v.s and the term @xmath257 in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w2 ] ) follows from the fact that there are at most @xmath258 remaining terms and each can be bounded above by @xmath259 using this in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w1 ] ) , we obtain @xmath260 we now use the premise that @xmath261 together with ( [ eqn : cap - markov ] ) and the memoryless property of the channel , which results in @xmath262 moreover , since the above bound applies for every @xmath263 i.e. , for every @xmath264 @xmath265 because the minimization is over channels whose state may vary over @xmath212 for every letter . note that @xmath266 are independent and identically distributed ( i.i.d . ) given @xmath234 ( by ( [ eqn : cap - x1x2 ] ) ) . therefore , given @xmath267 for every @xmath268 $ ] , @xmath269 are i.i.d . hence , @xmath270 where the maximization is over joint distributions satisfying ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w3 ] ) . [ cor : cap - ub - w ] @xmath271 where @xmath232 are @xmath8-ary r.v.s , @xmath272 and the maximization is over joint distributions such that @xmath273 are i.i.d . as we prove only a min - max type result , it becomes sufficient to consider only `` fixed '' memoryless coalition strategies , i.e. , strategies that remain fixed at every symbol instead of varying arbitrarily . in the subsequent text , @xmath274 will denote the @xmath36-letter extension of a dmc @xmath275    consider any sequence of @xmath5-fingerprinting codes @xmath276 of rate @xmath277 and error @xmath278 where @xmath279 approaches 0 as @xmath36 increases . then @xmath280 fix some @xmath281 we find that ( [ eqn : cap - ub - wmain ] ) holds for every @xmath24 therefore by the arguments in theorem [ thm : cap - ub - w ] @xmath282 where both @xmath283 and @xmath284 approach 0 as @xmath285 considering the inner term , we note that @xmath286 where @xmath287 and @xmath288 are the coordinate and key which maximize the mutual information . the term on the r.h.s . is a function of @xmath289 for every @xmath268,$ ] @xmath269 are i.i.d . when conditioned on @xmath290 therefore this term is at most @xmath291 where @xmath292 are @xmath8-ary r.v.s with @xmath293 and the maximization is over i.i.d . r.v.s . finally , since ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w7 ] ) is true for every @xmath294 we obtain the stated result by taking @xmath285      consider the case where @xmath295 . we would like to evaluate the upper bound on @xmath296 given by corollary [ cor : cap - ub - w ] . computing the exact optimum in this formula is a difficult problem . instead of attempting this , we will use a particular channel @xmath297 in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w ] ) and compute a maximum on the prior distribution @xmath298 for this channel . the resulting value of the rate gives an upper bound on capacity @xmath299 let @xmath297 be the `` uniform channel '' defined by @xmath300 where @xmath301 is the number of 1s among @xmath302 fig . [ fig : cap - unifch ] shows the uniform channel for @xmath303 intuitively this choice is the worst strategy of the coalition from the distributor s perspective . if @xmath273 are independent binary - valued r.v.s with @xmath304 and @xmath17 is the output of the uniform channel with inputs @xmath273 , we have @xmath305 and @xmath306 evaluating the maximum mutual information in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w ] ) for this channel gives a closed - form upper bound :    [ thm : cap - ub - w - bin ] @xmath307}\big\{h(p)-\sum_{i=0}^{t}\binom{t}{i}p^{i}(1-p)^{t - i}h\left (   \frac{i}{t}\right )   \big\}\label{eqn : cap - ub - w - bin}\\ & \leq\frac{1}{t\ln2}.\label{eqn : cap - ub - w - bin-2}\ ] ]    a proof of the estimate ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w - bin-2 ] ) is given in the appendix . [ thm : cap - ub - s ] for any @xmath78 @xmath308 where @xmath232 are @xmath8-ary r.v.s , @xmath272 and the maximization is over joint distributions such that @xmath273 are independent . we borrow techniques from @xcite in this proof . the result is proved for the case @xmath309 to ease understanding . it is a straightforward extension for arbitrary @xmath87 in the proof , all logarithms are to the base @xmath34    consider a family of @xmath36-length codes @xmath237 for @xmath35 users with probability distribution @xmath47 over @xmath38 which is @xmath310-fingerprinting with @xmath80-error ( @xmath311 ) . therefore @xmath312 let @xmath313 denote the fingerprints and @xmath314 denote the decoding regions for @xmath315 @xmath316 then the above error criterion can be written as follows : for every @xmath317 @xmath318 fix some @xmath319 there exists a @xmath320 such that @xmath321 hereafter , we drop the superscript @xmath322 for simplicity . consequently , either @xmath323 must be true . let us assume ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s1 ] ) is true . we first find a subset @xmath324 of `` good '' pairs of users ( messages ) for @xmath275 define @xmath325 where @xmath326 is such that @xmath327 then @xmath328 next , we derive a subset @xmath329 of the `` good '' pairs where approximate independence holds between the fingerprints ( codewords ) corresponding to a pair of users ( messages ) uniformly distributed over this subset . this is needed to restrict the maximization in the final result ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s ] ) to joint distributions where the r.v.s are independent . [ lem : cap - wring ] @xcite let @xmath330 @xmath331 with @xmath332 @xmath333 then for any @xmath334 @xmath335 there exist @xmath336,$ ] where @xmath337 and some @xmath338 such that for @xmath339 \right\ } $ ]    * @xmath340 , and * for all @xmath341 @xmath268,$ ] @xmath342 where @xmath343 is a pair of r.v.s with uniform distribution on @xmath344    applying lemma [ lem : cap - wring ] to @xmath324 as in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s - defa ] ) with parameters @xmath345 @xmath346 we obtain @xmath347    for @xmath348 define @xmath349 observe that the subcode corresponding to @xmath350 is a `` good '' code for the single - user channel obtained by fixing the second input to @xmath351 thus , the single - user strong converse given below holds for this subcode . [ lem : cap - aug ] @xcite if @xmath352 is a code with codewords @xmath353 and decoding regions @xmath354 for the ( non - stationary ) single - user dmc @xmath355 such that for every @xmath315 @xmath356 @xmath357 then @xmath358 where @xmath27 is distributed uniformly on the set of codewords . using lemma [ lem : cap - aug ] on the subcode @xmath359 @xmath360 where @xmath343 are distributed as in lemma [ lem : cap - wring ] and @xmath361 furthermore , using ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s4 ] ) , we obtain @xmath362 since @xmath363 for @xmath268.$ ] we next establish a lower bound on the left - side term in order to obtain an inequality for @xmath364 @xmath365 now , @xmath366 by using ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s3 ] ) and ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s8 ] ) . using this inequality in ( [ eqn : cap - ub - ss1 ] ) , we get @xmath367 combining ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s5 ] ) , ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s7 ] ) and ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s8 ] ) , @xmath368 although the above inequality resembles what is needed in the theorem , note that @xmath369 and @xmath370 are not necessarily independent . for @xmath371,$ ] let @xmath372 be r.v.s with distribution @xmath373 for all @xmath374 from lemma [ lem : cap - wring](b ) , for @xmath375 and every @xmath268 $ ] @xmath376 @xmath377 thus , by the uniform continuity of mutual information , for all @xmath268,$ ] @xmath378 where @xmath379 as @xmath285 together with ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s9 ] ) and dividing by @xmath105 @xmath380 where @xmath381 as @xmath285 similarly , assuming ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s2 ] ) is true , one can prove @xmath382 since either ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s11 ] ) or ( [ eqn : cap - ub - s12 ] ) holds for every @xmath317 taking @xmath383 concludes the proof . fix @xmath295 . for the case of @xmath309 and @xmath384 we again pick the uniform channel and obtain upper bounds on the expression in theorem [ thm : cap - ub - s ] , which turn out to be stronger than the bounds resulting from ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w - bin ] ) . the calculations become quite tedious for larger @xmath87 for @xmath385 let @xmath386 be independent binary - valued r.v.s with @xmath387 and let @xmath17 be the output of the uniform channel with inputs @xmath388 and @xmath389 we have @xmath390 computing the maximum conditional mutual information gives @xmath391 a similar computation for @xmath392 yields @xmath393 and the maximization gives @xmath394 combining these upper bounds with our lower bounds from theorem [ thm : cap - lb-2 ] and theorem [ thm : cap - lb-3 ] we obtain :    [ thm : cap-2bin ] @xmath395 @xmath396 in this paper , we prove new lower bounds on the maximum rate of binary fingerprinting codes for 2 and 3 pirates by considering typical coalitions which improves the random coding results obtained previously in the literature . we also prove several new upper bounds on fingerprinting capacity relying upon converse theorems for a class of channels which are similar to the multiple - access channel . our results establish for the binary case , @xmath397 combined with the result of @xcite this implies that @xmath398 for the general case with arbitrary alphabets , we have established some upper bounds on the capacity involving single - letter mutual information quantities .      _ lemma a.1 : _ let @xmath43 be a randomized code of size at least @xmath399 assume that @xmath400 then for any @xmath401 @xmath402    for simplicity of presentation we take @xmath403 the general case of @xmath404 can be established with only minor changes to the proof below . for any @xmath405 let us define a @xmath406 where @xmath407 then , for any coalition @xmath51 of size @xmath408 and any user @xmath409 @xmath410 , \label{eq : n}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath411 the first term in the last equation satisfies @xmath412 by the assumption of the lemma . we will next show that the second term in ( [ eq : n ] ) is also at most @xmath413 suppose for the sake of contradiction that @xmath414 let @xmath415 and @xmath416 ( we assume that the size of the code is at least @xmath417 or at least @xmath418 in the general case ) . then @xmath419 but this contradicts our initial assumption ( [ eq : assumption ] ) . it is clear that @xmath420 therefore , it is enough to show that for every randomized code @xmath43 , there exists another randomized code @xmath421 of the same rate such that @xmath422 for every channel @xmath423    we are given @xmath424 let @xmath425 identify a particular permutation from the set of all permutations on the message set @xmath249 choose @xmath426 uniformly at random from @xmath427 and construct a new key @xmath428 define @xmath429 @xmath430 let @xmath421 be the randomized code corresponding to the family @xmath431 then , for every channel @xmath74 @xmath432 . furthermore , for any @xmath433 @xmath434 @xmath435 which does not depend on the subset @xmath51 because of the averaging over all permutations . this implies @xmath436      our goal is to estimate @xmath437}u(p , t),$ ] where we use the following notation@xmath438@xmath439 first , note that @xmath440 is a concave function , and therefore @xmath441 is non - negative for all @xmath442.$ ] bernstein proved that the sequence of polynomials @xmath443 where @xmath444 is a function continuous on @xmath445 $ ] , provides a uniform approximation to @xmath444 on @xmath445.$ ] his proof , found for instance in feller @xcite  7.2 , relies on the weak law of large numbers . refining the proof in the case of the function @xmath440 , we show that for any @xmath442 $ ] and any @xmath2 @xmath446 it suffices to consider the case @xmath447.$ ]  given some @xmath448 let us write a quadratic taylor approximation for @xmath449 @xmath450 where the coefficient @xmath451 depends on @xmath452 since @xmath453  for some @xmath454.$ ] we shall also consider the residual function @xmath455 the main part of our proof is to show that for any @xmath456,$ ] @xmath457  the right inequality is obvious since @xmath458 for all @xmath459  the left inequality will be proven in two steps . let us take any point @xmath460.$ ] then we compare @xmath461 with the quadratic function @xmath462 on the entire interval @xmath463.$ ] we first prove that functions @xmath464 and @xmath465 coincide at only two points , namely @xmath466 and @xmath467 indeed , let us assume that there exists a third such point @xmath468 without loss of generality , let @xmath469  the functions @xmath464 and @xmath465 coincide at the ends of both intervals @xmath470 $ ] and @xmath471 $ ] ; therefore there exist two points @xmath472 and @xmath473 where both functions have equal derivatives : @xmath474 the left sides of both equalities represent a linear function of @xmath475 given by @xmath476 whereas the right sides represent a convex function @xmath477 a linear function can intersect a convex function at no more than two points . this leads to a contradiction , which shows that @xmath478 and that the functions @xmath464 and @xmath465 intersect at two points @xmath466 and @xmath467    our next step is to find the minimum @xmath479 for all @xmath463 . $ ]  compare the function @xmath464 with @xmath480 for any parameter @xmath481.$ ] now we use the fact that both functions intersect @xmath482 at only two points , one of which is @xmath483 however , @xmath480 has its second intersection @xmath484 to the left of @xmath467 thus , @xmath485 for @xmath486 and therefore , @xmath487 ( see fig .  [ fig : parabolas ] ) . now we conclude that @xmath488}a(x).\ ] ]    , height=192 ]    finally , we find @xmath489 using the equality @xmath490 which gives @xmath491    the second interval @xmath492 $ ] can be considered similarly@xmath4 again , we use the same arguments and conclude that the end point @xmath493 gives the minimum @xmath494}a(x).$ ] direct calculation also shows that the global minimum is achieved at @xmath158 as @xmath495 for all @xmath496 and @xmath497 for @xmath498 this gives us the left inequality in ( [ ld2 ] ) and shows that for any @xmath499 and any @xmath500,$ ] @xmath501 let us take @xmath502 and substitute the above estimate into the expression for @xmath503 in this substitution , we also use the first two moments of the binomial distribution @xmath504 which gives @xmath505 @xmath506 then @xmath507 finally , it is easy to verify that the function @xmath508 monotonically decreases on the interval @xmath509 $ ] and achieves its maximum @xmath510 at @xmath511 this establishes ( [ ld ] ) and hence the bound ( [ eqn : cap - ub - w - bin-2 ] ) . the authors would like to thank prakash narayan and gbor tardos for numerous illuminating discussions . r.  ahlswede and n.  cai , `` codes with the identifiable parent property and the multiple - access channel , '' _ general theory of information transfer _ , r. ahlswede at al . , lecture notes comput . , vol . 4123 , berlin : springer verlag , 2006 , pp .  249 - 257 . a.  barg , g.  r.  blakley and g.  kabatiansky , `` digital fingerprinting codes : problem statements , constructions , identification of traitors , '' _ ieee trans . inform . theory _ 852 - 865 , apr . a.  barg , g.  cohen , s.  encheva , g.  kabatiansky , and g.  zmor , `` a hypergraph approach to the identifying parent property : the case of multiple parents , '' _ siam journal discrete math . 14 , no.3 , pp . 423 - 431 , 2001 . g.  tardos , `` optimal probabilistic fingerprint codes , '' _ journal of the acm _ , to appear . preliminary version in _ proc . 35th annual acm symposium on theory of computing _ ( stoc 2003 ) , pp . 116 - 125 , 2003 .
Abstract:

Answer: we address the maximum attainable rate of fingerprinting codes under the marking assumption , studying lower and upper bounds on the value of the rate for various sizes of the attacker coalition . lower bounds are obtained by considering typical coalitions , which represents a new idea in the area of fingerprinting and enables us to improve the previously known lower bounds for coalitions of size two and three . for upper bounds , the fingerprinting problem is modelled as a communications problem . it is shown that the maximum code rate is bounded above by the capacity of a certain class of channels , which are similar to the multiple - access channel . converse coding theorems proved in the paper provide new upper bounds on fingerprinting capacity . it is proved that capacity for fingerprinting against coalitions of size two and three over the binary alphabet satisfies @xmath0 and @xmath1 respectively . for coalitions of an arbitrary fixed size @xmath2 we derive an upper bound @xmath3 on fingerprinting capacity in the binary case@xmath4 finally , for general alphabets , we establish upper bounds on the fingerprinting capacity involving only single - letter mutual information quantities .    digital fingerprinting , channel capacity , multiple - access channel , strong converse theorem .