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: the origin of ultra - high - energy ( uhe ) cosmic rays ( crs ) , that is of cosmic particles with energies @xmath0  ev , is presently unknown . however , there are numerous hints , both in data and in theory , which might help to constrain possible models of uhecr sources . in particular , the observation @xcite of the spectrum steepening consistent with the greisen  zatsepin  kuzmin @xcite ( gzk ) cutoff , together with the global isotropy of the arrival directions ( see e.g.  @xcite ) and the fact that the uhe particles are not expected to be confined by the milky - way magnetic field ( see e.g.  @xcite ) suggest that the bulk of cosmic rays at these energies have extragalactic origin . next , the lack of clustering of arrival directions at small scales is a powerful tool @xcite to constrain the number density of sources . in recent data of the pierre auger observatory ( pao ) , no evidence for clustering at @xmath1  ev is seen @xcite which translates into the number density of @xmath2 sources per cubic megaparsec , which means that sources of these extreme particles should not be exceptional and , most probably , some of them should be located relatively nearby . the latter fact gets further , though limited by statistical significance , support from the shape of the gzk feature in the spectrum which does not seem to be very sharp ( cf.ref . @xcite ) .    on the other hand , it is a nontrivial task to find particular astrophysical objects which could serve as uhecr accelerators . even without a detailed modelling of the acceleration process , a number of simple estimates rule out many classes of potential sources . these simple criteria include in particular the geometrical ( hillas ) criterion @xcite and estimates of radiative energy losses of particles being accelerated ( see e.g.  refs . analysis of the modern astrophysical data demonstrates @xcite that the combination of these constraints leaves just a few candidate classes of sources capable of acceleration of particles to uhe energies . leaving aside large - scale structures where interaction losses are expected to suppress the energy gain , the conventional diffusive ( e.g. , relativistic or non - relativistic shock ) acceleration may work only in ultrarelativistic jets , hot spots and lobes of exceptional active galaxies ( powerful radio galaxies and blazars ) which are not that abundant in the nearby universe . for very special field configurations when synchrotron losses are suppressed and the curvature radiation dominates , possible acceleration sites include also gamma - ray bursts ( grbs ) and immediate neighbourhood of supermassive black holes ( smbhs ) in the galactic nuclei . while it is unclear whether these field configurations may be present in grbs , recent icecube results disfavour the grb scenario anyway @xcite ( see however ref . @xcite ) . at this level of reasoning , the smbh environment remains a viable option . a natural assumption is that numerous uhecr sources are not identical  there should be less and more powerful accelerators where the maximal energies , injection spectra and fluxes of accelerated particles are different . until now , numerous attempts to model the sources of uhecrs and to confront theoretical predictions with experiments often assumed that these parameters are fixed once and for the entire universe ( see e.g.refs . @xcite and numerous other works ; see however ref . @xcite where acceleration in non - identical jets was considered ) . while , for numerous sources , the assumption of equal fluxes is well justifiable ( in the sence that only the mean flux of a large sample of sources is important and this mean flux does not vary significantly from one region in the universe to another ) and the injection spectrum is often fixed by the acceleration model , the maximal energies are expected to vary significantly . as it was recognised in ref . @xcite , these variations affect the observable spectrum seriously . in this work , we attempt to present a toy model of numerous and different sources of uhecrs and , within certain assumptions , to confront it with the experimental data .    to this end , we choose a simple toy model of particle acceleration in the immediate vicinity of smbh put forward in refs . the reason to choose this particular model is twofold . first , unlike many other models , it allows  @xcite for uhecr acceleration in numerous nearby sources . second , as we will see below , within some realistic assumptions , the acceleration capabilities of a source are determined by a single parameter , the smbh mass . at the same time , the demography of smbhs is well studied by astrophysicists and we take this advantage to describe the population of sources easily .    the rest of the paper is organized as follows . in sec . [ sec : bh ] , we give a brief review of the acceleration model of refs . @xcite and make a bridge between the parameters which determine the maximal energy of accelerated particles and the smbh mass . in sec.[sec : population ] , we discuss the astrophysical data on the smbh population , merge them with the acceleration model , calculate the spectrum of uhecrs with the account of propagation from source to the observer and compare it with the experimental cosmic - ray data . we obtain a good agreement with the observed spectrum by fitting the spectrum with only two continuous parameters , the overall normalization and a single free parameter of the model . [ sec : constraints ] demonstrates that the population model of sec . [ sec : population ] satisfies simple observational constraints : it does not produce too much secondary gamma rays , it results in an acceptable number density of sources and , with the best - fit normalization , it does not require enormous luminosity of a single source . we give our conclusions and discuss our results in sec . [ sec : concl ] . a toy model of particle acceleration in the black - hole magnetosphere was proposed by neronov et al .  @xcite . let us briefly discuss the model and its parameters . assume that a stationary rotating black hole without electric charge is embedded into the external magnetic field , homogeneous at the horizon distance scale . in general , the magnetic field is inclined at some angle @xmath3 with respect to the black - hole rotation axis . there is a well - known exact solution of maxwell s equations in the kerr metric for each inclination angle @xmath3 of an asymptotically homogeneous magnetic field @xcite . for instance , if @xmath4 , then a rotation - induced electric field is parallel to the magnetic one on the symmetry axis and its direction depends on the directions of both the magnetic field and the black hole s rotation velocity . thus in the region near the rotation axis , particles moving along magnetic lines are accelerated by the electric field .    in this case , radial components of the electric and magnetic fields in units @xmath5 in locally non - rotating frame in boyer - lindquist coordinates on the symmetry axis are : @xmath6 @xmath7 where @xmath8 is the black hole s mass , @xmath9 is its angular momentum per unit mass , @xmath10 is the radial coordinate and @xmath11 is the external homogeneous magnetic field .    neglecting for the moment the energy losses , the maximal energy gain of the accelerating particle with a charge @xmath12 is determined by the available potential difference in the region along the rotation axis , @xmath13 @xmath14 is the radius of the black - hole horizon where particle acceleration starts while @xmath15 limits the size of the region along the rotation axis , where acceleration is possible ( in ref . @xcite , it is called `` the vacuum gap '' due to the absence of numerous charged particles in this region except of the single test particle being accelerated , which does not change the electromagnetic field ) .    of course , one can rewrite eq . ( [ eq:2 ] ) for the potential difference and @xmath16 in terms of the distance - averaged electric field @xmath17 , @xmath18 @xmath19 where @xmath20 .    by making use of eq . ( [ eq:1 ] ) one obtains @xmath21 @xmath22.\ ] ] it is easy to see that the expression in square brackets equals to @xmath23 and therefore is always negative for any value of @xmath24 ( remember that the angular momentum per unit mass @xmath25 varies between zero and @xmath8 ) . thus for parallel magnetic field and angular momentum , @xmath26 and the radial component of the electric field @xmath27 on the black - hole rotation axis is negative . so if there are negative charges near the rotation axis , they will be accelerated away from the black hole . according to eq . ( [ eq:4 ] ) the difference between their energies at @xmath15 and @xmath28 is positive , so they gain energy while moving along the rotation axis away from the black hole . in the opposite case , when the magnetic field and angular momentum are antiparallel , the radial component of the electric field on the black hole rotation axis is positive . so positive - charge particles , situated near the rotation axis , are accelerated away from the black hole ; according to eq . ( [ eq:4 ] ) , the energy gain in this case is positive for the positive - charge particles .    in ref . @xcite , a simple expression @xmath29 rather than eq . ( [ eq:4 ] ) was used ; however , more precisely , eq .  ( [ eq:4 ] ) implies @xmath30 . the dependence of @xmath31 from the angular momentum @xmath25 for different @xmath24 is shown in fig . [ f_1 ] . dependence of the normalized maximal energy @xmath32 from the angular momentum @xmath25 of the black hole with mass @xmath8 for different values of the vacuum - gap size @xmath24 ( curves labeled by values of @xmath33 ; see the text for definitions of parameters ) . , scaledwidth=48.0% ]    for black holes with angular momentum @xmath34 and @xmath35 , we have @xmath36 ; however , for slowly rotating black holes , @xmath37 , @xmath38 varies from zero to @xmath39 . hereafter , @xmath40 denotes the schwarzschild radius . however , the precise value of @xmath16 is often irrelevant since particles can not achieve this maximal energy because of inevitable energy losses associated with the accelerated motion of the particle . the particle energy is determined by the balance between the energy losses and the energy gain per unit time , @xmath41 it was shown in ref . @xcite that protons can be accelerated to the energies of about @xmath42  ev only if the magnetic field is almost aligned with the rotation axis . in this case , only the curvature radiation is relevant for an accelerated particle , and not the synchrotron one . we should also note here that we do not consider energy losses related to interactions of accelerated particles in the source . the maximal energy of an accelerated particle is @xmath43 @xmath44 where @xmath11 is the external magnetic field , @xmath45 is the curvature radius of magnetic - field lines , @xmath12 is the particle charge , @xmath46 is the particle mass ( @xmath47 is the atomic number and @xmath48 is the nucleon mass ) and @xmath49 is a coefficient between the electric field and the external magnetic field , @xmath50 ( see eq . ( [ eq:1 ] ) ) . note that @xmath49 is a function of the angular momentum @xmath25 and the coordinate @xmath10 . we point out that numerically , @xmath51 , cf .  ref . @xcite , and therefore it is @xmath52 which determines the actual maximal energy . for simplicity , we assume that all of the particles start with equal initial conditions and so all of them are accelerated to the same energy @xmath52 .    the original model of ref . @xcite treated the magnetic field @xmath11 as a free parameter . however , one may note that the field is constrained and , in particular , can not be too high ( see ref . @xcite for a detailed discussion ) . the maximal value of the magnetic field is determined @xcite by the so - called eddington limit , @xmath53 . though this estimate may be obtained in several different ways , its most transparent meaning is that the magnetic - field energy density is equal to that of the accreting plasma , corresponding to the eddington luminosity . to obtain the maximal possible particle energy , we should assume that the external magnetic field is equal to the eddington limit , @xmath54 . however , below , we will find the spectrum of cosmic rays in the frameworks of this model . for this purpose we are interested in the actual maximal particle energy as a function of black - hole mass @xmath8 rather than in the upper limit . so we should recognize that the realistic magnetic field can differ from the eddington limit . in a general case , we can parametrize the external magnetic field as follows : @xmath55 where @xmath56 and @xmath57 are some parameters . we note in passing that several realistic models predict this kind of dependence , e.g.  the shakura  syunyaev model @xcite ( @xmath58 , @xmath59 ) or the model of ref . @xcite ( @xmath60 , @xmath61 ; see fig .  2 of ref . @xcite for comparison with scarce observational data ) . we will consider these options below . we have @xmath62    during acceleration , the particle emits curvature photons . in what follows , we will need to obtain an upper bound on this emission . the peak energy of the photons is determined by the particle energy @xmath63 , @xmath64 and for the upper limit , we take @xmath65 , @xmath66    the ratio of luminosities in photons , @xmath67 , and in cosmic rays , @xmath68 , may be estimated by comparing the total available potential difference in the acceleration region along the rotation axis to its fraction , spent on the particle acceleration : @xmath69    @xmath70    where @xmath71 for @xmath72 and @xmath73 . in numerical calculations presented below , we use @xmath74 and @xmath75 , cf . figs . [ f_1 ] ,  [ f_2 ] . to summarize , the model we use assumes a monochromatic spectrum of accelerated particles with @xmath76 , eq . ( [ eq : ecurv ] ) , in each particular source . the value of @xmath77 depends , within the assumed magnetic - field model , on the smbh mass @xmath8 only ( in what follows , we do not consider acceleration of other particles than protons ) . the overall flux from the source remains a free parameter . having discussed the model of particle acceleration in a particular source , we switch now to the population of sources . as we have seen , the properties of a single source are determined , within the magnetic - field model we choose to study , by the smbh mass ( the dependence from the spin is weak ) . to reconstruct the uhecr spectrum one has to consider the population of smbhs distributed in mass and luminosity . for simplicity we will assume that the _ mean _ smbh luminosity in cosmic rays is related to its mass , @xmath78 where @xmath79 is an additional model parameter . note that not every black hole can work as a source , because the source should possess some special properties ( for example , small inclination angle , the vacuum gap larger than @xmath40 , absence of numerous charged particles in the vicinity of the black hole which might imply a thin or even absent accretion disc ) . the fraction of sources where the mechanism works is also encoded in the mean luminosity , eq . ( [ eq : lcr ] ) . the observed spectrum can be obtained by convolving the smbh mass function with the ( monochromatic ) single - source spectrum and eq . ( [ eq : lcr ] ) and taking into account the propagation effects .      since dynamical measurements of smbh masses are available for a very limited number of cases only , it is a difficult task to find the mass function precisely . fortunately , a number of indirect methods to estimate the smbh mass are available ( see e.g.  ref . @xcite for a review ) . despite having large uncertainties in individual measurements , these methods are suitable for obtaining average characteristics of the smbh population , see e.g.  ref . @xcite for a review .    an important feature of the smbh mass function is its evolution : smbhs grow fast , cf . e.g.  ref . @xcite . for our calculation , we use one of the most recent published redshift - dependent mass functions @xcite . of two functions presented there , we choose to use the one based on the stellar mass functions because it has smaller statistical uncertainties . the systematic uncertainties of the mass function may be judged from ref . @xcite and are well within the overall precision of our toy model .      before reaching the earth , the accelerated protons may interact with the cosmic microwave background . the main two processes modifying the shape of the propagated cosmic - ray spectrum are photopion production and @xmath80-pair production . the former leads to a strong suppression of the proton flux above few tens of eev known as the gzk effect  @xcite , why the latter mostly dominates the attenuation below 10 eev leading to the so - called `` dip '' feature in the spectrum  @xcite . we use the numerical code developed in refs . the code also traces secondary particles produced in the interactions . it makes use of the kinetic - equation approach and calculates the propagation of nucleons , stable leptons and photons using the standard dominant processes ( see e.g. ref . @xcite ) . [ f_specauger ] presents the predicted cosmic - ray fluxes in the best - fit model for the auger spectrum @xcite for different dependencies of the magnetic field @xmath81 on smbh mass mentioned in previous section . the red curves correspond to @xmath81 given by the eddington limit , the green one describes the shakura  syunyaev model  @xcite and the blue one corresponds to the model of ref . the overall flux normalization is a free parameter . besides we tried two values of angle @xmath82 and @xmath83 and varied the luminosity dependence  ( [ eq : lcr ] ) parameter @xmath79 in the range @xmath84 . the best - fit parameter values are indicated on the plot . one can see that the first two models produce satisfactory spectral fits above 10  eev . in this section , we discuss additional consistency checks of the model . they include estimates of the accompanying gamma radiation which should not be in conflict with the measured diffuse gamma - ray background , estimates of the concentration of sources and of the luminosity of a single source . we will see that the model passes these tests . for order - of - magnitude estimates in this section , we assume @xmath85 . let us check that the local concentration of sources of cosmic rays with energies @xmath86 is not in conflict with the lower limit  @xcite based on the statistics of clustering . to this end , we integrate the smbh mass function over the range of masses corresponding to these energies . the dependence of the particle energy from the black - hole mass is given by eq . ( [ eq : efrommass ] ) . every black - hole mass corresponds to a range of particle energies due to the variations in the value of @xmath49 . the black - hole mass function includes all the black holes with fixed masses and so all the black holes with every value of @xmath49 . thus , the lower limit of the required mass interval is determined by @xmath87 and the maximum value of @xmath49 . it was shown in ref . @xcite that particles can be accelerated to the energies of about @xmath88 only if the size of the vacuum gap is not smaller than the schwarzschild radius . in this case , the highest value of @xmath89 is @xmath90 ( see fig.[f_2 ] ) . dependence of the coefficient @xmath89 from the angular momentum @xmath25 of the black hole with mass @xmath8 for different values of the vacuum - gap size @xmath24 ( curves labeled by values of @xmath33 ; see the text for definitions of parameters ) . , scaledwidth=48.0% ]    black - hole masses corresponding to particle energies @xmath91 are then @xmath92 . integrating the mass function in this range of masses , we obtain @xmath93 the integral is saturated at its lower limit that is @xmath94 can be taken arbitrary high to obtain the following estimate , @xmath95 as we see , the total concentration of sources is larger than the clustering lower bound of @xmath96 . as we have discussed above , only a fraction of the calculated concentration @xmath97 corresponds to the true concentration of the sources . our estimate tells us that this fraction should be not less than a few per cent which is reasonable . a simple estimate of the luminosity of a single source may be obtained as follows . consider the observed flux of cosmic rays with energies @xmath86 . the value @xmath98 , which is often reported , is @xmath99 where @xmath100 is the number of particles with energy @xmath101 , per unit area per unit time . then , for the flux @xmath102 we have @xmath103 and , from the recent data  @xcite , we obtain the estimate @xmath104    on the other hand , this flux is produced by the sources situated in the gzk sphere , where the gzk horizon radius is @xmath105 for energies @xmath106 , see e.g.  @xcite . we assume that all these sources have approximately equal cosmic - ray luminosities @xmath107 $ ] , independent from the source black - hole mass ( in reasonable agreement with the best - fit values of @xmath79 , sec . [ sec : population ] ) . because in this case the gzk radius corresponds to very small redshifts @xmath108 , we can neglect changing of the source concentration with the redshift . for the order - of - magnitude estimate , we neglect also the difference between the energy with which the particle was emitted and the final particle s energy with which we detect it on the earth . let us also note that , because we are interested in all sources of the accelerated particles with energies @xmath109 , in the expression for the total flux we have to substitute the total concentration of sources , eq . ( [ 3 ] ) , that was obtained by integrating the mass function . the flux from every single source , situated at the distance @xmath110 from us , is @xmath111 . thus for the total flux we have @xmath112 using @xmath113 , we obtain @xmath114 the corresponding luminosity in photons is @xmath115 where @xmath116 is given by eq . ( [ eq : eta ] ) . one has @xmath117 this value is much smaller than the typical bolometric luminosity of an agn , @xmath118 , and by far does not exceed the eddington limit , @xmath119 . taking the concentration of the sources of order of the lower limit , @xmath120 , does not result in a conflict as well .    in all the cases , the luminosity is not that far from the luminosity of an agn , and a natural question arises : can we see our sources in @xmath121 as point sources ? a simple estimate of the flux of @xmath121 photons associated with the particle acceleration from one of the nearest sources , @xmath122 , gives the answer : we can not see them as point sources because the flux from a single source is smaller than the sensitivity of the telescopes . indeed , the flux of @xmath123 corresponds to the counting rate of @xmath124 beyond the reach of current tev telescopes . of course , this does not mean that strong tev sources can not accelerate uhe particles by this mechanism : the tev emission may have a totally different origin . while individual cosmic - ray sources have quite low gamma - ray luminosities , one may wonder about the total emission of all sources in the universe ( beyond the gzk sphere ) . the emitted curvature photons have energies of order a few tev and interact with the infrared background radiation to produce electromagnetic cascades in which the energy of the leading gamma rays downgrade to the gev band . electrons in the cascade are deflected by cosmic magnetic fields so distant sources contribute to the diffuse gamma - ray background . let us check that this contribution does not exceed the measured value of the diffuse flux . a simple estimate may be obtained as follows . consider particles with energies @xmath125 . cosmic rays with these energies arrive to us from the interior of the gzk sphere only , but the associated photons come from all sources at all distances . knowing how much cosmic rays come from the interior of the gzk sphere , we can estimate how much of them are present in the universe ( keeping in mind that the number of sources depends on the distance ) . and supposing that the luminosity of a source in cosmic rays is connected with its luminosity in associated photons , eq . ( [ eq : eta ] ) , we can estimate the total photon emission from all the sources .    the flux at the earth , eq . ( [ eq : j ] ) , is expressed in terms of the energy at detection , @xmath126 , which in general differs from the energy at injection , @xmath127 . in particular , the account of the universe expansion ( even neglecting additional energy losses ) results in @xmath128 , where @xmath129 is the redshift of the source . the number of the emitted particles per unit time is also @xmath130 times higher than the number of detected particles on the earth per unit time . the contribution to @xmath131 from the sources located at redshift @xmath129 is @xmath132 where @xmath133 is the number density of black holes with masses @xmath134 ( for @xmath135 , see eq . ( [ eq : efrommass ] ) ) at the redshift @xmath129 , @xmath136 is a number of detected particles per unit time from one of the sources , which were emitted with the energy @xmath137 , @xmath138 is the volume of a spherical layer at the distance @xmath129 from us , @xmath139 is the area of a sphere with the radius equal to the distance from the source to the earth ( it is necessary for calculating a number of particles through the unit area on the earth ) . taking into account the dependence from the redshift @xmath129 , we may find the source cosmic - ray luminosity @xmath140 , that is its total energy emission in cosmic rays per unit time , @xmath141 where @xmath142 is a number of particles with the energy @xmath127 emitted by the source per unit time and we assumed that the source emits particles with the only energy , determined by its mass @xmath8 .    for the flat universe , we have @xmath143 and @xmath144 where @xmath145 is the geodesic coordinate distance from the observer to the source location . finally    @xmath146    where @xmath147 is just the mass function for a given @xmath129  @xcite , @xmath148 is the redshift of the most distant source . here we are interested in the values of the mass function at the points @xmath149 as a function of z. this function could be easily constructed using the data from ref . @xcite . using eq . ( [ eq : efrommass ] ) , we have @xmath150    for simplicity , let us suppose that all the sources have the same luminosities @xmath151 . this assumption is in reasonable agreement with the results obtained in section  [ sec : population ] . thus we can take the luminosity out of the integral . let us now imagine just for a moment , that cosmic rays with such energies could come from all distances , and calculate the ratio of the values @xmath131 for the cosmic rays with the energies @xmath152  ev from the gzk sphere ( @xmath153 ) and from the whole universe ( e.g.  @xmath154 ) . the luminosities in front of these two integrals are cancelled and after integrating we obtain : @xmath155 taking into account the observed value of the cosmic - ray flux , we estimate @xmath156    for calculating the value of @xmath157 for the gamma radiation from all the possible sources in the whole universe we should only replace @xmath158 in the integral ( [ f_9 ] ) by the corresponding expression for photons , eq . ( [ 4 ] ) , and the cosmic - ray luminosity @xmath159 by the photon luminosity @xmath160 , eq .  ( [ eq : eta ] ) . the order - of - magnitude estimate then reads @xmath161 this total gamma - ray emission associated with particle acceleration in all the sources does not exceed the observed value of the diffuse gamma - ray background @xcite . we have also performed a more detailed numerical simulation of the secondary gamma - ray flux . the injection spectrum of the curvature photons is similar to the synchrotron one  @xcite ,    @xmath162 where @xmath163 is the `` critical '' frequency ( for higher frequencies , radiation is negligible ) , @xmath164 is the frequency of the radiated photons , @xmath165 is the macdonald function , @xmath166 is the particle lorentz factor , @xmath167 is the curvature radius of the particle trajectory ( for curvature radiation , @xmath167 is constant and it is equal to the curvature radius of the magnetic lines ) . the total flux of the photons from a single source is related to the cosmic - ray flux by the coefficient @xmath116 , eq . ( [ eq : eta ] ) . for the best - fit spectrum of sec . [ sec : pop : spectrum ] , we used the same code to describe the propagation of the accompanying gamma rays and to calculate the observed gamma - ray flux . the result is presented in fig . [ f_specaugergamma ] .    . ]    one may see that the diffuse gamma - ray upper limit is satisfied . we have constructed and studied a toy model of uhecr acceleration in the vicinity of numerous and various supermassive black holes in centers of galaxies . the model assumes that :    * cosmic - ray particles are accelerated by the regular electric field within a few @xmath168 from the smbh  @xcite ; the field configuration is given by the solutions of refs . @xcite and is fully determined by the smbh mass @xmath8 , its angular momentum @xmath25 and the magnetic - field normalization @xmath11 ; * all cosmic - ray particles accelerated near a given smbh have similar initial conditions and therefore all are accelerated up to one and the same energy limited by the curvature - radiation losses ; this maximal energy is calculated in the model and depends on @xmath8 only ( provided @xmath11 is a given , model - dependent , function of @xmath8 ; dependence from @xmath25 smooths this monochromatic spectrum insignificantly ) ; * the _ mean _ flux of a source ( which accounts for the fraction of the sources where this mechanism does work ) depends from @xmath8 in a power - like manner ; the normalization and the exponent are two free parameters of the model ( the best fit to the cosmic - ray spectrum indicates that this dependence is weak ) ; * the concentration of sources is determined by the redshift - dependent smbh mass function taken from astrophysical literature .    within these assumptions and given the @xmath169 relation is fixed ( we considered three popular choices for it ) , the model has two free parameters which we find by fitting the cosmic - ray spectrum at the earth to the experimental data . with parameters fixed in this way , we subject the model to several further tests which it passes succesfully :    1 . the concentration of sources is large enough to satisfy the constraints from absence of clustering in uhecr arrival directions ; 2 . the luminosity of a particular source , determined by the flux normalization and concentration , is not too high ; 3 . secondary gamma rays from distant sources do not overshy the measured gev diffuse gamma - ray background . given the success of the toy model , it is interesting to discuss its possible refinements . the assumptions we have made within the model are quite robust and realistic . one subtle point is related to the value of the smbh angular momentum @xmath25 which may vary from one black hole to another . however , these variations are probably modest given the scaling relation between the mass and the angular momentum of cosmic black holes proposed in ref . the precision of predictions may be improved with more realistic modelling of the acceleration mechanism , in particular , with account of the charge concentration at the smbh and in the acceleration region , of the finite thickness of the accretion disk etc . ultimately , this approach might give answer to the question , which particular smbhs are strong sources and which are not , thus determining the ( presently free ) parameter theoretically . however , this is a complicated task and is far beyond the scope of the present work .    one possible question concerns the low - energy part of the spectrum where , as is clearly seen from fig . [ f_specaugergamma ] , the contribution of the mechanism we discuss is insufficient to explain the observed spectrum due to the depletion of the smbh mass function at low masses . it is tempting to speculate that this depletion is compensated by a huge contribution of the smbh in our own galaxy which , indeed , has the appropriate mass . a quantitative analysis of this proposal requires , however , a much more precise study of physical properties and possibilities for particle acceleration close to the galactic center . * acknowledgements . * we are indebted to v.  alba , p.  dunin - barkowski , g.  farrar , a.  neronov , d.  semikoz and i.  tkachev for interesting discussions . we thank the authors of ref . @xcite for providing numerical values of the smbh mass function we used . this work was supported in part by the rfbr grant 10 - 02 - 01406 and by the grant of the president of the russian federation ns-5590.2012.2 , by the rfbr grants 12 - 02 - 01203 and 11 - 02 - 01528 ( s.t . ) and by the dynasty foundation ( k.p.and s.t . ) . numerical part of the work was performed at the cluster of the theoretical division of inr ras . r.  u.  abbasi _ et al . _ [ hires collaboration ] , phys . * 100 * ( 2008 ) 101101 [ astro - ph/0703099 ] . j.  abraham _ et al . _ [ pierre auger collaboration ] , phys . * 101 * ( 2008 ) 061101 [ arxiv:0806.4302 [ astro - ph ] ] . t.  abu - zayyad _ et al . _ [ telescope array collaboration ] , arxiv:1205.5067 [ astro-ph.he ] . k.  greisen , phys . * 16 * ( 1966 ) 748 . g.  t.  zatsepin and v.  a.  kuzmin , jetp lett . * 4 * ( 1966 ) 78 [ pisma zh . * 4 * ( 1966 ) 114 ] . t.  abu - zayyad _ et al . _ , [ telescope array collaboration ] , astrophys . j.  ( 2012 ) in press , arxiv:1205.5984 [ astro-ph.he ] . m.  nagano and a.  a.  watson , rev . * 72 * ( 2000 ) 689 . s.  troitsky , jetp letters ( 2012 ) in press , arxiv:1205.6435 [ astro-ph.he ] . s.  l.  dubovsky , p.  g.  tinyakov and i.  i.  tkachev , phys . * 85 * ( 2000 ) 1154 [ astro - ph/0001317 ] . p.  abreu _ et al . _ [ pierre auger collaboration ] , arxiv:1107.4805 [ astro-ph.he ] . m.  kachelriess , d.  v.  semikoz and m.  a.  tortola , phys . d * 68 * ( 2003 ) 043005 [ hep - ph/0302161 ] . a.  m.  hillas , ann . astrophys . * 22 * ( 1984 ) 425 . f.  a.  aharonian _ et al . _ , phys . d * 66 * ( 2002 ) 023005 [ astro - ph/0202229 ] . m.  v.  medvedev , phys . e * 67 * ( 2003 ) 045401 [ astro - ph/0303271 ] . k.  ptitsyna and s.  v.  troitsky , phys . usp .   * 53 * ( 2010 ) 691 [ uspekhi fiz . nauk * 180 * ( 2010 ) 723 ] [ arxiv:0808.0367 [ astro - ph ] ] . r.  abbasi _ et al . _ [ icecube collaboration ] , nature * 484 * ( 2012 ) 351 [ arxiv:1204.4219 [ astro-ph.he ] ] . arxiv:1205.3479 [ astro-ph.he ] . v.  berezinsky , a.  z.  gazizov and s.  i.  grigorieva , phys .  rev . d * 74 * ( 2006 ) 043005 [ hep - ph/0204357 ] . g.  gelmini , o.  e.  kalashev and d.  v.  semikoz , astropart . * 28 * ( 2007 ) 390 [ astro - ph/0702464 ] . v.  s.  ptuskin , s.  i.  rogovaya and v.  n.  zirakashvili , arxiv:1105.4491 [ astro-ph.co ] . m.  kachelriess and d.  v.  semikoz , phys . b * 634 * ( 2006 ) 143 [ astro - ph/0510188 ] . a.  neronov and d.  semikoz , new astron . * 47 * ( 2003 ) 693                w .- m . zhang , y.  lu and s.  n.  zhang , chin . j.  astron . astrophys . * 5 * ( 2005 ) 347 [ astro - ph/0501365 ] . l.  ferrarese and h.  ford , space sci . rev .   * 116 * ( 2005 ) 523 [ astro - ph/0411247 ] . f.  shankar , new astron . * 53 * ( 2009 ) 57 [ arxiv:0907.5213 [ astro-ph.co ] ] . d.  m.  alexander and r.  c.  hickox , arxiv:1112.1949 [ astro-ph.ga ] . li , l.  c.  ho and j .- m . wang , astrophys .  j.   * 742 * ( 2011 ) 33 [ arxiv:1109.0089 [ astro-ph.co ] ] . c.  t.  hill and d.  n.  schramm , phys . d * 31 * , 564 ( 1985 ) . v.  s.  berezinsky and s.  i.  grigoreva , astron . astrophys . * 199 * , 1 ( 1988 ) . o.  e.  kalashev , v.  a.  kuzmin and d.  v.  semikoz , astro - ph/9911035 ; mod . a * 16 * , 2505 ( 2001 ) [ astro - ph/0006349 ] ; o.  e.  kalashev , ph.d . thesis , inr ras , 2003 . p.  bhattacharjee , g.  sigl , phys . rept . * 327 * , 109 ( 2000 ) . p.  abreu _ et al . _ [ pierre auger collaboration ] , arxiv:1107.4809 [ astro-ph.he ] . o.  e.  kalashev _ et al . _ , jcap * 0803 * ( 2008 ) 003 [ arxiv:0710.1382 [ astro - ph ] ] . a.  a.  abdo _ et al . _ [ fermi - lat collaboration ] , phys .  rev . * 104 * ( 2010 ) 101101 [ arxiv:1002.3603 [ astro-ph.he ] ] . j.  d.  jackson , classical electrodynamics , john wiley @xmath170 sons , inc . , new york - london ( 1962 )
Abstract:

Answer: we construct and discuss a toy model of the population of numerous non - identical extragalactic sources of ultra - high - energy cosmic rays . in the model , cosmic - ray particles are accelerated in magnetospheres of supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei , the key parameter of acceleration being the black - hole mass . we use astrophysical data on the redshift - dependent black - hole mass function to describe the population of these cosmic - ray accelerators , from weak to powerful , and confront the model with cosmic - ray data .


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: scale symmetry has been an interesting subject both in formal quantum field theory and in particle physics phenomenology  @xcite . the most important example is the scale invariance ( weyl invariance or conformal invariance ) in string theory , which is nothing but 2-dimensional quantum field theories for the string world sheet in target spacetime of spacetime dimensionality @xmath6 . the condition of vanishing quantum scale anomaly constrains possible perturbative string theories to be defined only in @xmath7 spacetime for bosonic string theory and @xmath8 spacetime for superstring theory . however , implementing scale symmetry to particle physics has not been so successful compared with string theory for various reasons . first of all , scale symmetry is always broken by quantum radiative corrections through renormalization effects . even if we start from a theory with classical scale symmetry ( namely , no dimensional parameters in @xmath9 ) , the corresponding quantum theory always involves hidden scales , the cutoff scale ( @xmath10 ) in cutoff regularization or pauli - villars regularization , and the renormalization scale @xmath11 in dimensional regularization . in either case , scale symmetry is explicitly broken by quantum effects , and scale symmetry is anomalous . if the couplings do not run because of vanishing @xmath12 function , we would have truly scale invariant ( or conformal symmetric ) theory , and @xmath13 super yang - mills theory is believed to be such an example . secondly , scale symmetry may be spontaneously broken by some nonzero values of dimensionful order parameters due to some nonperturbative dynamics , very often involving some strong interaction . for example , we can consider massless qcd with classical scale invariance . in this case there could be nonzero gluon condensate @xmath14 and chiral condensate @xmath15 , where new scales @xmath16 and @xmath17 are generated dynamically and they would be roughly of order of the confinement scale @xmath18 . since scale symmetry is spontaneously broken , there would appear massless nambu - goldstone ( ng ) boson , which is often called dilaton related to dilatation symmetry . if scale symmetry were not anomalously broken by quantum effects , dilaton could be exactly massless . however , scale symmetry is usually broken explicitly by renormalization effects , and dilaton would acquire nonzero mass which is related to the size of quantum anomaly , in a similar way to the pion as a pseudo nambu - goldstone boson in ordinary qcd . if the dilaton mass is too large compared with the spontaneous scale symmetry breaking scale , it is not meaningful to talk about dilaton as a pseudo ng boson . on the other hand , if dilaton is light enough , then we can use the nonlinear realization of scale symmetry with built - in quantum scale anomaly . whether dilaton can be light enough or not is a very difficult question to address . the answer would depend on the underlying theories with classical scale symmetry , without which we can not say for sure about pseudo ng boson nature of dilaton . let us note that there have been longtime questions about generating the masses of ( fundamental ) particle only from quantum dynamics . a good example is getting proton mass from massless qcd . since the contributions of current quark masses to proton mass are negligible , we can say that proton mass is mostly coming from quantum dynamics between ( almost massless ) quarks and gluons . another well - known example is radiative symmetry breaking  la coleman - weinberg mechanism  @xcite . in fact , a number of recent papers address generating particle masses along this direction . there are two different ways to getting mass scales from scale invariant classical theories : one from new strong dynamics in a hidden sector  @xcite and the other by cw mechanism  @xcite . if there are no mass parameters in classical lagrangian , the theory would have classical scale symmetry . and all the mass scales would have been generated by quantum effects , either nonperturbatively or perturbatively .    before the higgs boson was discovered , dilaton ( denoted as @xmath19 in this paper ) has been considered as an alternative to the higgs boson  @xcite from time to time , since dilation couplings to the sm fields are similar to the sm higgs field at classical level , except that the overall coupling scale is given by the dilaton decay constant @xmath20 instead of the higgs vacuum expectation value ( vev ) @xmath21 . at quantum level , dilaton has couplings to the gauge kinetic functions due to the quantum scale anomaly  @xcite , a distinct property of dilaton which is not shared by the sm higgs boson . the radion  @xcite in randall - sundrum ( rs ) model  @xcite has the similar properties as the dilaton , in that it couples to the trace of the energy - momentum tensor too just like the dilaton @xcite . the interest in dilaton physics has been renewed recently @xcite , since the lhc announced discovery of a new boson of mass around 126  gev ( which we call @xmath22 in this letter ) @xcite . radion - higgs mixing scenarios have also been extensively studied in the light of the lhc results @xcite . the current data still suffer from large uncertainties , but the observed new particle has properties that are consistent with the sm predictions , although there is a tendency that the @xmath23 mode is enhanced over the sm predictions at atlas detector . the other modes are consistent with the sm predictions , but within a large uncertainty . the effective interaction lagrangian for a dilaton @xmath19 to the sm field can be derived by using nonlinear realization : @xmath24 @xcite . with the trace of the energy momentum tensor , which is the divergence of dilatation current , the interaction terms which are linear in @xmath19 cast into    @xmath25 , \ ] ]    where @xmath26 is the higgs mass in the broken phase of the sm gauge group . we argue that this form of dilaton interaction to the sm fields may not be proper , since only the unbroken subgroup of the sm gauge symmetry has been imposed on @xmath0 . if we imposed the full sm gauge symmetry on @xmath0 , the more proper form of the dilaton couplings to the sm should be described by eq . ( 3 ) below , which is completely different from eq . ( 1 ) . the sm lagrangian is written as    @xmath27    where @xmath28 , @xmath29 and @xmath22 denote the sm gauge fields , fermions and higgs field in a schematic way . in this form , scale symmetry is explicitly broken by a single term , @xmath30 in the sm . also quantum mechanical effects break scale symmetry anomalously . in the end , the trace of energy - momentum tensor of the sm , which measures the amount of scale symmetry breaking , is given by @xmath31 this form of @xmath0 respects the full sm gauge symmetry @xmath32 . this form is clearly different from the usual form , eq . ( 1 ) , which is constructed after ewsb and respects only the unbroken subgroup of the sm , @xmath33 . we claim that one has to use the form before ewsb , since we do not know the scale of spontaneous scale symmetry breaking . if @xmath34 , it would be more reasonable to impose the full sm gauge symmetry with eq . this point should be even more evident for the radion in the randall - sundrum scenario , since the existence of the radion @xmath19 is independent of ewsb , and thus it should couple to the @xmath0 of the sm fields with the full sm gauge symmetry @xmath3 , eq . ( 3 ) , and not to the form with the unbroken subgroup @xmath35 of the sm . it is the purpose of this paper to analyze the higgs - dilaton system using the dilaton couplings to the sm fields which respects the full sm gauge interactions , and compare the results with the most recent lhc data on the higgs boson . in sec . ii , we derive the effective lagrangian for dilaton coupled to the sm fields , and derive the interactions between them . then we perform phenomenological analysis in sec . iii , comparing theoretical predictions based on eq . ( 3 ) with the lhc data on the higgs boson , and derive the constraints on the mass of the 2nd scalar boson and the mixing angle , as well as the deviations of quartic and triple couplings of the higgs bosons . the results are summarized in sec . iv , and the @xmath12 functions for dimensionless couplings in the sm are collected in appendix for convenience . let us assume that there is a scale invariant system where scale symmetry is spontaneously broken at some high energy scale @xmath20 , with the resulting nambu - goldstone boson which is called dilaton @xmath19 . in terms of @xmath36 , the lagrangian for the sm plus a dilaton would be written as    @xmath37    where @xmath38 is the conformal compensator , which is put to 1 at the end of calculation . keeping the linear term in @xmath19 , we recover the eq . ( 1 ) with @xmath39 being given by eq .  ( 3 ) . note that the dilaton coupling to the sm fields in this work is different from other works in the literature . in most works , the dilaton is assumed to couple to the sm fields in the broken phase with unbroken local @xmath40 symmetry . however if scale symmetry breaking occurs at high energy scale , it would be more reasonable to assume that the dilaton couple to the sm lagrangian as given in the above form with the full sm gauge symmetry @xmath41 imposed . the ground state of the potential for the classical lagrangian is given by either @xmath42 for the unbroken ew phase , and @xmath43 for ewsb into @xmath44 , ignoring the contributions from the vacuum expectation values of the scale anomaly , such as @xmath45 etc . the vanishing tadpole conditions for the correct vacua are given by @xmath46 we have used the @xmath47 , for convenience . from these two conditions , one can derive @xmath48 which solves for @xmath49 for given @xmath50 and @xmath51 . note that the higgs vev @xmath21 is fixed by the weak gauge boson masses @xmath52 and @xmath53 to be @xmath54 gev . we will consider the ewsb vacuum , and calculate the ( mass)@xmath55 matrix for the field fluctuation around the vev : @xmath56 and @xmath57 . note that rescaling of the quantum fluctuation @xmath19 around @xmath49 is necessary , i.e. @xmath58 . after rescaling the mass matrix should be @xmath59 where we define @xmath60    one can diagonalize this matrix by introducing two mass eigenstates @xmath61 and @xmath62 and the mixing angle @xmath63 between the two states , with the following transformation :    @xmath64    here we use the basis @xmath65 now the interaction lagrangian between dilaton and the sm fields can be derived in terms of @xmath61 and @xmath62 .      in this subsection , we derive the interaction lagrangian between the dilaton(radion ) and the sm fields both in the interaction and in the mass eigenstate basis . let us first discuss the interactions of the dilaton(radion ) with the sm fermions and the sm higgs boson with the full @xmath3 : @xmath66 with @xmath67 and @xmath68 . the first equality is in the interaction basis , whereas the second one is in the mass basis . note that there is no direct coupling of the dilaton(radion ) ( @xmath19 ) to the sm chiral fermion at the classical level , namely when we ignore the quantum scale anomaly of yukawa interactions . this is because we have imposed the full sm gauge symmetry , eq . on the other hand , earlier literature uses the following dilaton couplings to the sm fermions assuming the unbroken subgroup @xmath69 : @xmath70 note that there is no proper limit where the earlier result ( 14 ) based on @xmath0 with unbroken subgroup of the sm gauge symmetry @xmath71 approaches our result ( 13 ) based on @xmath0 with the full sm gauge symmetry @xmath72 . this shows that it is very important to impose which gauge symmetry on the fundamental lagrangian . it should be the full sm gauge symmetry @xmath72 rather than its unbroken subgroup @xmath73 that has been widely used in earlier literature , when we consider new physics at ew scale and the new physics scale is not known . and the fermion dm @xmath74 is given by dim-4 operator @xmath75 , which in fact respects only the unbroken sm gauge group @xmath35 and not the full gauge symmetry @xmath3 . when we construct the renormalizable model with the full sm gauge symmetry , we would recover the model presented in ref . @xcite , and the model based on @xmath35 would give wrong physics . more detail will be described elsewhere . ] the same argument applies to other interactions of the dilaton(radion ) with the sm gauge bosons or the sm higgs boson . we list them below for completeness : @xmath76 the @xmath12 functions for the sm gauge groups are listed in the appendix a for convenience . the sm higgs field @xmath77 will interact with gluons or photons just as in the standard model case , and we have to add these to the above interaction lagrangian . the offshoot of our approach is that the dilaton @xmath19 mixes with the sm higgs boson @xmath77 , and couples to the sm fields through quantum scale anomaly in addition to the classical scale symmetry breaking term , i.e. @xmath78 . since the dilaton @xmath19 and the sm higgs boson @xmath77 mix with each other to make two scalar bosons @xmath61 and @xmath62 , their couplings to the sm fermions will be reduced by a universal amount due to the mixing effects  @xcite , while their couplings to the sm gauge bosons , especially to gluons , could be further modified by quantum scale anomalies . this observation has a very tantalizing implication for higgs signals at the lhc , which will be elaborated in the following . since there are two scalar bosons , we take one of them to be 126  gev resonance that was observed recently at the lhc . since the dilaton(radion ) @xmath19 couplings to the trace anomaly of the sm fields ( eq . ( 3 ) ) are distinctly different from the interactions between the sm fields and other singlet scalar bosons appearing in various extensions of the sm  @xcite , phenomenological consequences of the higgs - dilaton mixing are analyzed separately in this paper . compared with the sm higgs boson , the higgs - dilaton system considered in this paper has only two more parameters ( @xmath79 and @xmath20 ) , which makes phenomenological analysis feasible . two scalars @xmath19 and @xmath77 mix with each other after ewsb , leading to two mass eigenstates @xmath61 and @xmath62 . fixing one higgs boson mass to be @xmath5  gev , all other parameters in the lagrangian such as the other higgs boson mass , the mixing angle @xmath63 , triple and quartic couplings of @xmath61 and @xmath62 , are all expressed as functions of @xmath80 and @xmath20 . likewise , their decay widths and branching ratios are completely fixed as functions of @xmath80 and @xmath20 . in the numerical analysis , we assume @xmath81 , following our spirit that the spontaneous scale symmetry breaking scale occurs before electroweak symmetry breaking . as mentioned in the previous section , the interactions of the higgs boson to the sm particles are modified in two different ways compared with the sm , via mixing with dilaton and the quantum scale anomalies . note that the modification due to quantum scale anomalies are very small that their effects are negligible in most cases , except for the gluon - gluon and @xmath82 couplings to the higgs boson through scale anomaly associated with @xmath83 gauge interaction . therefore the branching ratios of physical higgs bosons decaying into the sm fermions are suppressed relative to those of the sm higgs boson by mixing angle , whereas those into the sm gauge bosons could be modified through quantum scale anomaly .    for a given @xmath84 , we calculate the signal strength of each scalar boson into a specific final state : @xmath85 where ` @xmath86 ' means a specific ` final states ' , @xmath87 , etc . the subscript @xmath88 represents two scalar bosons in the mass eigenstates , and the ` production ' denotes the production mechanisms such as gluon - gluon fusion ( ggf ) , vector boson fusion ( vbf ) , higgs production associated with vector boson ( vh ) , and top quark pair production associated with higgs boson ( tth ) . .signal strengths reported by atlas and cms . [ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ]     in case of decays of two physical scalar bosons , the dominant effect of dilaton results in the coupling suppression via the mixing between @xmath77 and @xmath19 . on the other hand , in their production parts , there are further modifications on the ggf generated by quantum scale anomaly associated with color @xmath89 gauge fields . this kind of modification by scale anomaly is small in other production channels , i.e. , vbf , vh and tth . consequently , we can expect that the ggf initiated processes can be significantly modified by quantum scale anomaly but other channels are suppressed just by the mixing angle . we perform the analyses for two distinct cases . the first case is that the heavy mode @xmath62 is identified as observed 126 gev boson , with extra light mode . the other case is that the light mode @xmath61 is identified as observed 126 gev boson , with extra heavy mode . the cms and atlas collaborations reported the results based on five- and seven - different channels , respectively  @xcite.(see table 1 . ) the most recent cms results are consistent with the sm even including the diphoton decay channel  @xcite , which was larger than the sm value in the previous analysis  @xcite . the enhancement in diphoton mode is still there in the atlas report , and also in the @xmath90 mode with less significance . considering the current situation of conflicting data on @xmath91 , we consider two separate cases reported by cms and atlas collaborations . for each case , we perform the @xmath92 analysis and select the parameter sets within the @xmath93 range around the each @xmath92 minimum @xcite . let us start with the case that heavier @xmath62 is the observed @xmath5  gev boson . all the physical observables are functions of @xmath95 , which can be traded with the mixing angle @xmath63 and the second higgs mass @xmath96 . in fig.[fig : mf - s ] , we show that the mixing angle @xmath63 and the extra light boson mass @xmath96 are fully determined in the @xmath95 plane .         with the identification of the observed higgs boson as @xmath97 gev , we also put the constraints of @xmath93 range around the minimum @xmath92 . in addition to that , we also consider the experimental constraint for the light scalar particle that is determined by the lep experiment @xcite . considering these three constraints , the allowed parameter region is shown in fig.[fig : s - aa ] in the @xmath98 plane . the colored columns denote the signal strengths . as noted in sec . 3.1 , the dilaton production from gluon fusion ( @xmath99 ) can be enhanced due to the qcd scale anomaly and thus can compete with the sm higgs production from gluon fusion ( @xmath100 ) . therefore the higgs signal strengths depend mainly on the production channels rather than the decay channels , and we present the @xmath82 channel only in fig .  1 . one can see that the ggf initiated process can be modified significantly compared to the sm value . on the other hand , the vbf initiated one is suppressed by the mixing angle only , so that its signal strength is always smaller than one . also note that the allowed region for the mixing angle @xmath63 is highly constrained around @xmath101 . this means that the observed @xmath5  gev boson is largely sm - like and the extra light mode is dilaton - like , namely @xmath102 and @xmath103 . even though the mixing angle is close to @xmath104 and @xmath102 , rather large modification is possible from the mixing with the dilation through the tuning of the input parameters @xmath80 and @xmath20 . there should be an extra light scalar mode @xmath61 whose mass is constrained to be in the range @xmath105 $ ]  gev , which is a prediction of our model . since the model has only two more input parameters @xmath106 , some observables are highly correlated , which make the generic signals of the model . in fig.[fig : s - corr ] , we show two such correlations with the contours of @xmath96 in different colors . the left plot shows a strong correlation between the ggf - initiated signal strengths @xmath107 and @xmath82 production process . the correlation is almost linear , since the scale anomaly contribution to the ggf initiated process is dominant . the slope of the correlation slightly deviates from one ` 1 ' because of the small difference between the @xmath108 and @xmath109 scale anomalies . the yellow and purple boxes are showing the @xmath110 observations by cms and atlas . the right plot shows the correlation between the signal strengths of different initial states but the same final states , the diphoton channels . though the correlation is not that strong as the left plot , the atlas data tends to prefer the larger value of @xmath96 . triple and quartic couplings for the @xmath111 are completely determined within this model , making distinct discriminators for this model . in the allowed parameter region , the predictions for triple and quartic couplings of the sm - like higgs boson @xmath62 are shown in fig.[fig : s-34 ] . one can see that triple and quartic couplings are suppressed compared with the sm values , depending on the @xmath61 mass . especially for the triple coupling it gives relative minus sign compared to the sm value , which would result in the constructive interference between the box diagram and the triangle diagram with the @xmath112channel @xmath62 propagator , and thus increase the @xmath62 pair production in @xmath113 @xcite . in addition , we observe a strong correlation between triple and quartic couplings , which is presented in fig.[fig : s-34corr ] . along with the @xmath61 mass , the triple and quartic couplings are highly inter - related . this will be the strong distinctive signal for testing the model , which could be probed at the upcoming lhc run and at the ilc . let us move to the other case where the observed @xmath5  gev boson is lighter one , @xmath61 . in this case there is an extra heavy mode named @xmath62 . as before , we first show in fig . [ fig : mf - h ] the contour plots of the mixing angle @xmath63 and the extra heavy scalar boson mass @xmath115 in the @xmath95 plane . we select the allowed parameter region by @xmath93 range from the @xmath92 minima for cms and altas results . in this case there are another experimental exclusion bounds on the higgs - like heavy mode by cms and atlas with range up to @xmath116 gev @xcite . in this case , the allowed range for the mixing angle @xmath63 is severely restricted around the sm values , @xmath117 ( see fig.[fig : aa ] ) .         for both cases the signal strengths are very close to 1 , the sm values . this means that the experimental data strongly favor the sm case and the dilaton should be heavy enough to decouple from the theory . compared to the sm , only the surviving region for the heavier scalar mass @xmath115 is relatively relaxed compared with the constraints on the sm - like higgs boson , which can be expected because of the mixing between the sm higgs boson @xmath77 and the dilation @xmath19 depending on the @xmath84 parameter values . as a result , other observables as triple and quartic couplings are also strongly restricted around the sm values .    as a result , unlike the case i , it is not sufficient just to look into the observed @xmath118 sector to discriminate the model from the sm , since the model is pointing to the almost exact sm values for it . the heavier scalar boson mass is constrained to be larger than @xmath119 367 gev from the higgs signal strengths of the observed 126 gev boson and the heavier higgs searches ( see fig .  5 ) . this is a distinctive feature of our model compared with the sm . so the more detailed studies on the possible extra heavy scalar boson are necessary in the future @xmath120 tev lhc and tentative international linear collider ( ilc ) to test this model more completely . in this letter , we considered the sm coupled with some spontaneously broken scale symmetric sector with light dilaton ( pseudo nambu - goldstone boson ) ( or the radion in the rs scenario ) using the @xmath121 invariant form of the trace of the energy momentum tensor of the sm fields , eq . our approach is different from others in that most earlier studies used the @xmath122 which is invariant under @xmath83 invariant form [ eq . ( 1 ) ] , not the form which is invariant under the full sm gauge symmetry . the sm higgs boson and the dilaton @xmath19 mix with each other after ewsb . since the original dilaton is coupled to the sm fields only through the higgs mass parameter @xmath123 term and the quantum scale anomalies , two scalar bosons after the mixing carry the nature of the original dilaton and the sm higgs boson .    considering the @xmath93 ranges around the @xmath92 minima and experimental constraints on the extra light / heavy mode by lep / lhc , the allowed region on the mixing angle and extra scalar mass is highly restricted . for the case of @xmath5 gev boson and extra light scalar particle , we can give robust prediction for the mass of the extra light scalar and mixing angle . also the correlations between the various signal strengths could be the good distinctive signals of our model . the triple and quartic couplings and their correlation give the impressive testbed for the model , which can be further studied in the 14 tev lhc and ilc . on the other hand , if we identify the observed scalar particle with mass @xmath5 gev as light mode @xmath61 , with the constraints upon the extra heavy sm - like scalar mode searched by cms and atlas , the remaining parameter sets become severely confined around the sm expectations . this means that it is not enough to discriminate the model from the sm just by looking into the @xmath5 gev sector . in this case , the more detailed study on the extra heavy mode will be necessary to test the model completely . the @xmath12-functions that contribute to scale anomalies are collected for convenience  @xcite : @xmath124 where @xmath125    we thank sunghoon jung for useful discussion . this work is supported in part by the national research foundation of korea ( nrf ) research grant 2012r1a2a1a01006053 ( p.k . and d.w.j . ) , and by the nrf grant funded by the korea government ( msip ) ( no . 2009 - 0083526 ) through korea neutrino research center at seoul national university ( p.k . ) . r.  foot , a.  kobakhidze , k.  .l . mcdonald and r.  .r . volkas , phys . d * 76 * , 075014 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv:0706.1829 [ hep - ph ] ] . r.  foot , a.  kobakhidze , k.  l.  mcdonald and r.  r.  volkas , phys . d * 77 * , 035006 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0709.2750 [ hep - ph ] ] .    k.  a.  meissner and h.  nicolai , phys .  lett . b * 648 * , 312 ( 2007 ) [ hep - th/0612165 ] . s.  iso , n.  okada and y.  orikasa , phys . b * 676 * , 81 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0902.4050 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  iso , n.  okada and y.  orikasa , phys . d * 80 * , 115007 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0909.0128 [ hep - ph ] ] . m.  holthausen , m.  lindner and m.  a.  schmidt , phys . d * 82 * , 055002 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:0911.0710 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  iso and y.  orikasa , ptep * 2013 * , 023b08 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1210.2848 [ hep - ph ] ] . e.  j.  chun , s.  jung and h.  m.  lee , phys . b * 725 * , 158 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1304.5815 [ hep - ph ] ] . w.  d.  goldberger , b.  grinstein and w.  skiba , phys . * 100 * ( 2008 ) 111802 [ arxiv:0708.1463 [ hep - ph ] ] . v.  barger , m.  ishida and w.  -y . keung , phys . * 108 * ( 2012 ) 101802 [ arxiv:1111.4473 [ hep - ph ] ] . k.  yamawaki , m.  bando and k.  -i . matumoto , phys . * 56 * ( 1986 ) 1335 . t.  w.  appelquist , d.  karabali and l.  c.  r.  wijewardhana , phys . * 57 * ( 1986 ) 957 . r.  foot , a.  kobakhidze and r.  r.  volkas , phys . b * 655 * ( 2007 ) 156 [ arxiv:0704.1165 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  r.  coleman and r.  jackiw , annals phys . * 67 * ( 1971 ) 552 . w.  d.  goldberger and m.  b.  wise , phys . * 83 * ( 1999 ) 4922 [ hep - ph/9907447 ] . l.  randall and r.  sundrum , phys . * 83 * ( 1999 ) 3370 [ hep - ph/9905221 ] . l.  randall and r.  sundrum , phys . * 83 * ( 1999 ) 4690 [ hep - th/9906064 ] . g.  f.  giudice , r.  rattazzi and j.  d.  wells , nucl . b * 595 * , 250 ( 2001 ) [ hep - ph/0002178 ] . s.  bae , p.  ko , h.  s.  lee and j.  lee , phys .  lett . b * 487 * , 299 ( 2000 ) [ hep - ph/0002224 ] . c.  csaki , m.  l.  graesser and g.  d.  kribs , phys . d * 63 * , 065002 ( 2001 ) [ hep - th/0008151 ] . k.  cheung and t.  -c . yuan , phys . * 108 * ( 2012 ) 141602 [ arxiv:1112.4146 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  matsuzaki and k.  yamawaki , phys . d * 85 * ( 2012 ) 095020 [ arxiv:1201.4722 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  matsuzaki and k.  yamawaki , phys . d * 86 * ( 2012 ) 035025 [ arxiv:1206.6703 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  matsuzaki and k.  yamawaki , phys . b * 719 * ( 2013 ) 378 [ arxiv:1207.5911 [ hep - ph ] ] . s.  matsuzaki and k.  yamawaki , phys .  rev . d * 86 * ( 2012 ) 115004 [ arxiv:1209.2017 [ hep - ph ] ] . d.  elander and m.  piai , nucl . b * 867 * ( 2013 ) 779809 [ arxiv:1208.0546 [ hep - ph ] ] . d.  k.  hong , arxiv:1304.7832 [ hep - ph ] . z.  chacko and r.  k.  mishra , phys . d * 87 * ( 2013 ) 115006 [ arxiv:1209.3022 [ hep - ph ] ] . z.  chacko , r.  franceschini and r.  k.  mishra , jhep * 1304 * ( 2013 ) 015 [ arxiv:1209.3259 [ hep - ph ] ] . b.  bellazzini , c.  csaki , j.  hubisz , j.  serra and j.  terning , eur . j.  c * 73 * ( 2013 ) 2333 [ arxiv:1209.3299 [ hep - ph ] ] . c.  coriano , l.  delle rose , a.  quintavalle and m.  serino , jhep * 1306 * ( 2013 ) 077 [ arxiv:1206.0590 [ hep - ph ] ] . t.  abe , r.  kitano , y.  konishi , k.  -y . oda , j.  sato and s.  sugiyama , phys . d * 86 * ( 2012 ) 115016 [ arxiv:1209.4544 [ hep - ph ] ] . j.  cao , y.  he , p. wu , m.  zhang and j.  zhu , arxiv:1311.6661 [ hep - ph ] . atlas collaboration , atlas - conf-2013 - 012 . s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _ [ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1312.5353 [ hep - ex ] . s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _ [ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1312.1129 [ hep - ex ] . s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _ [ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1310.3687 [ hep - ex ] . cms collaboration , cms - pas - hig-13 - 004 . m.  toharia , phys . d * 79 * ( 2009 ) 015009 [ arxiv:0809.5245 [ hep - ph ] ] . b.  grzadkowski , j.  f.  gunion and m.  toharia , phys . b * 712 * ( 2012 ) 70 [ arxiv:1202.5017 [ hep - ph ] ] . h.  de sandes and r.  rosenfeld , phys .  rev . d * 85 * ( 2012 ) 053003 [ arxiv:1111.2006 [ hep - ph ] ] . h.  kubota and m.  nojiri , phys . d * 87 * ( 2013 ) 076011 [ arxiv:1207.0621 [ hep - ph ] ] . n.  desai , u.  maitra and b.  mukhopadhyaya , arxiv:1307.3765 . p.  cox , a.  d.  medina , t.  s.  ray and a.  spray , arxiv:1311.3663 [ hep - ph ] . s.  choi , s.  jung and p.  ko , jhep * 1310 * , 225 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1307.3948 ] . s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _ [ cms collaboration ] , phys . b * 716 * , 30 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7235 [ hep - ex ] ] . y. avni , 1976 . j. , * 210 * , 642 . r.  barate _ [ lep working group for higgs boson searches and aleph and delphi and l3 and opal collaborations ] , phys . b * 565 * ( 2003 ) 61 [ hep - ex/0306033 ] . t.  plehn , m.  spira and p.  m.  zerwas , nucl . b * 479 * , 46 ( 1996 ) [ erratum - ibid . b * 531 * , 655 ( 1998 ) ] [ hep - ph/9603205 ] . cms collaboration , cms - hig-12 - 034        h.  arason , d.  j.  castano , b.  keszthelyi , s.  mikaelian , e.  j.  piard , p.  ramond and b.  d.  wright , phys . d * 46 * , 3945 ( 1992 ) . s.  baek , p.  ko and w.  -i . park , jhep * 1202 * , 047 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1112.1847 [ hep - ph ] ] .
Abstract:

Answer: we consider the higgs - dilaton(radion ) system using the trace of the energy - momentum tensor ( @xmath0 ) with the full standard model ( sm ) gauge symmetry @xmath1 , and find out that the resulting phenomenology for the higgs - dilaton(radion ) system is distinctly different from the earlier studies based on the @xmath0 with the unbroken subgroup @xmath2 of @xmath3 . after electroweak symmetry breaking ( ewsb ) , the sm higgs boson and dilaton(radion ) will mix with each other , and there appear two higgs - like scalar bosons and the higgs - dilaton mixing changes the scalar phenomenology in interesting ways . the signal strengths for the @xmath4-initiated channels could be modified significantly compared with the sm predictions due to the qcd scale anomaly and the higgs - dilaton(radion ) mixing , whereas anomaly contributions are almost negligible for other channels . we also discuss the self - couplings and the signal strengths of the @xmath5 gev scalar boson in various channels and possible constraints from the extra light / heavy scalar boson . the higgs - dilaton(radion ) system considered in this work has a number of distinctive features that could be tested by the upcoming lhc running and at the ilc .