\section{Introduction}

The study of synchronization between chaotic systems has been a topic
of increasing interest since the beginnings of the '90s.
One important step in this direction was the introduction of the
concept of {\it generalized synchronization} \cite{ott,pikovsky,rulkov},
extending previous studies of coupled identical systems ({\it identical
synchronization} \cite{fuji-yamada,fujisaka,piko1,schuster,pecora,pg}) to the
study of coupled systems with different dynamics.

Let us denote by  $\bX$ and $\bY$ two dynamical systems, and by
$\bx=\{x_1,\ldots,x_d\}$ and $\by=\{y_1,\ldots,y_r\}$ their state
vectors, obtained for example by delay embedding.
We assume in the following that the dynamics is deterministic with
continuous time (the case of maps is completely analogous, and will be treated in
Secs. 3 and 4).
We further assume the systems are unidirectionally coupled, say  $\bX$
is the autonomous driver and  $\bY$ the driven response
\bea
\dot{\bx}(t) & = & F (\bx(t))\;,            \nonumber \\
\dot{\by}(t) & = & G (\by(t),\bx(t))
\label{eq:systems}
\eea

We speak about generalized synchronization between $\bX$ and $\bY$ if the
following relation exists:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:function}
\by(t) = \Psi( \bx(t) )
\end{equation}
\noindent
This requirement is less restrictive than the one of
identical synchronization, in which $\Psi = 1$.
Equation (\ref{eq:function}) implies that the state
of the response system is a function {\bf only} of the state of the
driver.  It is not to be confused with the opposite relation
$\bx(t) = \Phi(\by(t))$ (considered in \cite{quyen2}), which is
generically valid for sufficiently high
embedding dimensions if the coupling is non-singular, in the sense of
obeying  $\det(\partial G_i/\partial x_n) \neq 0$ everywhere.
This follows from the implicit function theorem, which allows us to
invert eq.(\ref{eq:systems}b) to $\bx = \chi (\by, \dot{\by})$, and
from the fact that $\tilde{\bf y}(t) = ({\bf y}(t), \dot{\bf y}(t))$ is as good a
state vector as ${\bf y(t)}$.
In particular, if we consider $G (\by(t),\bx(t)) = H(\by(t)) +
U(\bx(t))$, we immediately have
 $\bx(t) = U^{-1} (\dot{\by}(t) - H(\by(t)))$ if $U(\bx)$ can be inverted.

The transformation $\Psi$ does not need to be smooth as considered in
\cite{rulkov,abarbanel} and explicitly required in \cite{brown,josic}.
In fact, Pyragas \cite{pyragas} defined as strong
and week synchronizations the cases of smooth and non-smooth
transformations, respectively (see also \cite{hunt}).

If one of the systems drives the other and a relationship like
equation (\ref{eq:function}) exists, it is possible to predict the
response from the simultaneous state of the driver. But the opposite
is not true. Just knowing that a relationship like equation
(\ref{eq:function}) exists and that the state of $\bY$ can be predicted
from that of $\bX$, it is in general not possible to establish
which is the driver and which is the response.
This is obvious when $\Psi$ is bijective (i.e., $\Phi = \Psi^{-1}$
exists and is unique). The above arguments tell us that $\Psi$ is
indeed likely to be bijective in case of generalized synchronization,
at least for nearly all $\bx$: If a coupling is not regular in the above sense,
then its singularities are typically located on a set of measure zero.
One might tend to believe that $\bX$ must control $\bY$ (and not the opposite),
if $\by$ follows the motion of $\bx$ with a positive time delay.
But even then one cannot be sure since there could be an internal delay
loop in $\bY$ which causes the emitted time series to lag behind. Also,
both systems could be driven by a third system.
Thus, detecting causal relationships is not easy in general, although it is of
course of utmost importance in many applications.

In the above we pretended that we could detect {\it exactly} whether
the state of one of the systems is a function of the other. This is of
course never the case in practical applications. Different observables
which should enable one to detect interdependencies in realistic cases
were introduced by several authors. Following an original idea of
Rulkov et al. \cite{rulkov,abarbanel}, mutual cross-predictabilities were
defined and studied by Schiff {\it et al.}~\cite{schiff} and
Le van Quyen {\it et al.}~\cite{quyen1,quyen2}. A quantity more closely
related to that of \cite{rulkov}, but optimized for robustness to noise and
imperfections in the data was used in \cite{arnhold}. In the latter paper
also a number of other variants were discussed. Some of these variants were
tested and found to be inferior, but no systematic tests were made.

In contrast to our above discussion, the authors of \cite{schiff} and
\cite{quyen1,quyen2} claimed that driver/response relationships {\it can}
be deduced from such interdependencies. But their proposals, backed by
numerical studies of simple model systems, were mutually contradictory.
While it was argued in \cite{schiff} that the driver state ${\bf x}$ should be more
dependent on the response state ${\bf y}$ (i.e., there exists a stronger
functional dependency $\by\stackrel{\Phi}{\to} \bx$) than vice versa (which is,
as we said, a bit counter intuitive), exactly the opposite was claimed in
\cite{quyen1,quyen2}. Finally, in \cite{arnhold} it was claimed that
neither can be expected to be correct in realistic situations with finite
noisy data, and that it is in general the system with more
excited degrees of freedom (the more `active' system) that is more
independent, while the state of the more `passive' system (with less excited
degrees of freedom) depends on it.

It is the purpose of the present work to settle this question by
carefully studying simple toy models, including Lorenz, Roessler, and
Henon systems, using two of the interdependence measures proposed
in \cite{arnhold}. Basic notions involved in generalized synchronization are
reviewed in Sec.2. In Sec.3, we recall the operational definition of
interdependence used in \cite{arnhold}. Numerical results are presented
in Sec.4, and our conclusion is drawn in Sec.5.

\section{Generalized Synchronization with Exactly Known Dynamics}

While identical synchronization is easily visualized by plotting the difference
between one of the coordinates of the driver and the corresponding
coordinate of the response, no similarly simple way exists to detect
generalized synchronization. Constructing the function $\Psi$ explicitly
\cite{brown2} might be possible in particularly simple cases, but since
this will be never exact, it will be never clear whether deviations from
eq.(2) are due to lack of synchronization or inexactness of $\Psi$.
Instead, the methods of choice in cases where the exact equations of motion
are known and where arbitrary initial states can be prepared are the
study of Lyapunov exponents and the identical synchronization of two
identical response systems differing in their initial conditions.

For the driver/response systems as in eq.(1), one has $d+r$ different
Lyapunov exponents. Of these, $d$ exponents coincide with those of the
(autonomous) driver denoted by $\lambda^{(\bX)}_i,\; i=1\ldots d$. The
other $r$ exponents coincide with those of the response,
considered as a non-autonomous system driven by the external signal $\bx(t)$
(called {\it conditional Lyapunov exponents} in \cite{pecora}) \footnote{
To see this, we have to recall that all Lyapunov exponents are obtained by
iterating $d+r$ basis vectors in tangent space, and re-orthogonalize them
repeatedly. Tangent vectors corresponding to $\lambda^{(\bX)}_i$ span only
the first $d$ coordinates. The remaining tangent vectors have the first $d$
components equal to zero, either by orthogonalization or because their
last $r$ components increase
faster than any of the first $d$ components.}.
They will be called $\lambda^{(\bY)}_i,\; i=1\ldots r$. Ranking the
Lyapunov exponents as usual by magnitude, we have generalized synchronization
iff $\lambda^{(\bY)}_1 < 0$.

Furthermore, once the Lyapunov exponents are known, the dimension of the
combined system $\bX+\bY$ can be estimated from the Kaplan-Yorke formula
\cite{kaplan}
\be
D_{\bX+\bY} = l + \sum_{j=1}^l \frac{\lambda_j}{|\lambda_{l+1}|}
\label{eq:kaplanyorke}
\ee
(here, $l$ is the largest integer for which the sum over $j$ is non negative).
Generically, we must expect this also to be the dimension of $\bY$ alone
\footnote{I.e., the dimension of an attractor constructed exclusively from
components of $\by$; we keep of course the fact that $\bY$ is driven by $\bX$.}.
The reason is that, as pointed out in the introduction, $\bX$ will be
a (single- or multivalued) function of $\bY$, if the inverse of $G(\bx,\by)$
is single- or multivalued. On the other hand, the Kaplan-Yorke dimension
of $\bX$ alone may be equal to $D_{\bX+\bY}$ or smaller. It is given by a
formula similar to eq.(\ref{eq:kaplanyorke}) but with $\lambda_i$ replaced
by $\lambda^{(\bX)}_i$. We see that
\be
  D_{\bX} < D_{\bX+\bY} \qquad {\rm iff}\qquad \lambda_1^{(\bY)} > \lambda_{l+1}^{(\bX)},
\ee
where $l$ is determined by $\sum_{j\leq l}\lambda_j^{(\bX)} \leq 0 <
\sum_{j\leq l+1}\lambda_j^{(\bX)}$.
If this inequality holds (together with $\lambda_1^{(\bY)} <0$), we have
{\it weak synchronization} in the sense of Pyragas \cite{pyragas}. In the
opposite case, i.e. $\lambda_1^{(\bY)} \leq \lambda_{l+1}^{(\bX)}$,
one is likely to have strong synchronization, although this
might not be true due to multifractality: Due to the latter, it is possible
that the box-counting dimension of $\bX$ is strictly smaller than that of $\bX+\bY$,
although the equality holds for the Kaplan-Yorke (i.e., information)
dimensions. In such a case $\Psi$ cannot be smooth, but regions where $\Psi$
is non-smooth might well be of measure zero \cite{hunt}.

Another approach for detecting generalized synchronization is by using
two identical response systems which differ only in their initial
conditions.
If these replicas get
synchronized after some transient, their  trajectories are obviously
independent of the initial conditions, thus being only a function of
the driver. This is most easily checked visually, e.g. by plotting
the difference between two analogous components of the two replicas
against time. In this way one can also check for intermittencies and long
transients which can, together with finite numerical resolution,
severely obscure the interpretation.

\section{Generalized Synchronization in Real Life}

The above considerations depend on the availability of the exact equations
of motion, and on the ability to prepare identical replicas. Neither holds
for typical applications.

Real signals usually consist of short segments of data contaminated by noise.
Furthermore, the dynamics of the system is not known, and therefore the
methods described in the previous section are not applicable.

While identically synchronized systems describe the same
trajectory in the phase space, the hallmark of a relationship as in eq.(2)
is that any recurrence of $\bX$ implies a recurrence of $\bY$.
If $\bX$ comes {\it exactly} back to a state it had already been in
before, the same must be true for $\bY$. In real data, one cannot
of course expect exact recurrence. We will therefore use as a
criterion that whenever two states of $\bX$ are similar, the contemporary
states of $\bY$ are also similar.

In \cite{schiff,quyen1,quyen2}, this was implemented by making forecasts
of $\bx_n$ using local neighborhoods (e.g., by means of locally linear maps), and
comparing the quality of these forecasts with that of forecasts based
on ``wrong" neighborhoods. In the latter, the nearest neighbors of $\bx_n$
are replaced by the equal time partners of the nearest neighbors of $\by_n$.
For reasons explained in \cite{arnhold}, we prefer to use instead a
measure closer to the original proposal of Rulkov {\it et al.} \cite{rulkov}.
But we should stress that we see no reason why our results should not be
carried over to the observables used in \cite{schiff,quyen1,quyen2}
immediately.

Let us suppose we have two simultaneously measured univariate time series
from which we can reconstruct $m$-dimensional delay vectors \cite{takens}
$\bx_n=(x_n,\ldots,x_{n-m+1})$ and
$\by_n=(y_n,\ldots,y_{n-m+1})$, $n=1,\ldots N$.

Let $r_{n,j}$ and $s_{n,j}$, $j=1,\ldots,k$, denote the time indices of the $k$
nearest neighbors of $\bx_n$ and $\by_n$, respectively.
For each $\bx_n$, the squared mean Euclidean distance to its $k$
neighbors is defined as

\be
   R_n^{(k)}(\bX)=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=1}^{k}{\left( \bx_n - \bx_{r_{n,j}} \right)^2}
\label{R1}
\ee
and the {\it {\bY}-conditioned} squared mean Euclidean distance is defined by
replacing the nearest neighbors by the equal time partners of the closest
neighbors of $\by_n$,

\begin{equation}
   R_n^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)=\frac{1}{k} \sum_{j=1}^{k}{\left( \bx_n -
          \bx_{s_{n,j}} \right)^2}.
\label{R2}
\end{equation}

If the point cloud $\{\bx_n\}$ has average squared radius $R(\bX)
= \langle R^{(N-1)}(\bX)\rangle$ and effective dimension $D$ (for a
stochastic time series embedded in $m$ dimensions, $D=m$),
then $R_n^{(k)}(\bX) \ll R(\bX)$ for $k \ll N$. More precisely,
we expect
\be
    R_n^{(k)}(\bX) / R(\bX) \sim (k/N)^{2/D},  \label{knd}
\ee
where $D$ is the
dimension of the probability measure from which the points $\bx_n$ are drawn.
Furthermore, $ R_n^{(k)}(\bX|\bY) \approx R_n^{(k)}(\bX) \ll R(\bX)$
if the systems are strongly correlated, while
$R_n^{(k)}(\bX|\bY) \gg R_n^{(k)}(\bX)$ if they are independent.
Accordingly, we can define an interdependence measure
$S^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)$ as
\be
   S^{(k)}(\bX | \bY) = \frac{1}{N}
           \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{R_n^{(k)}(\bX)}{R_n^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)} .
\label{SXY}
\ee
Since $R_n^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)\ge R_n^{(k)}(\bX)$ by construction, we have
\be
   0 < S^{(k)}(\bX | \bY) \le 1.
\ee
Low values of $S^{(k)}(\bX | \bY)$ indicate independence between $\bX$
and $\bY$, while high values indicate
synchronization (becoming maximal when $S^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)\to 1$).

The opposite interdependence $S^{(k)}(\bY|\bX)$ is
defined in complete analogy. It is in general {\it not} equal to
$S^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)$.
If $S^{(k)}(\bX|\bY) > S^{(k)}(\bY|\bX)$, i.e. if $\bX$ depends
more on $\bY$ than vice versa, instead of assuming a causal
relationship, we just say that $\bY$ is more ``active"
than $\bX$. As was argued in \cite{arnhold}, high activity is
mainly due to a large effective dimension $D$, on the typical
length scale set by the distances $|\bx_n - \bx_{r_{n,k}}|$ and
$|\bx_n - \bx_{s_{n,k}}|$.\\

The second interdependence measure to be used in this work was also
introduced in \cite{arnhold}.
In eq.(\ref{SXY}) we essentially compare the $\bY$-conditioned mean squared
distances to the unconditioned m.s. nearest neighbor distances. Instead of this, we
could have compared the former to the m.s. distances to {\it random} points,
$R_n(\bX) = (N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j\neq n} (\bx_n-\bx_j)^2$. Also, in ergodic theory
often geometric averages are more robust and more easy to interpret than
arithmetic ones. Therefore, let us use the geometrical
average in the analogon of eq.(\ref{SXY}), and define
\be
      H^{(k)}(\bX | \bY) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \log \frac{R_n(\bX)}{R_n^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)}
                                                    \label{HXY}
\ee
This is zero if $\bX$ and $\bY$ are completely independent, while it is positive if
nearness in $\bY$ implies also nearness in $\bX$ for equal time partners.
It would be negative if close pairs in $\bY$ would
correspond mainly to distant pairs in $\bX$. This is
very unlikely but not impossible. Therefore, $H^{(k)}(\bX | \bY)=0$ suggests that
$\bX$ and $\bY$ are independent, but does not prove it. This (and the asymmetry under
the exchange $\bX\leftrightarrow \bY$) is the main difference
between $H^{(k)}(\bX | \bY)$ and mutual information. The latter is strictly positive
whenever $\bX$ and $\bY$ are not completely independent. As a consequence,
mutual information is quadratic in the correlation $P(\bX,\bY)-P(\bX)P(\bY)$ for weak
correlations ($P$ are here probability distributions), while $H^{(k)}(\bX | \bY)$ is
linear. Thus $H^{(k)}(\bX | \bY)$ is more sensitive to weak dependencies which
might make it useful in applications. Also, it should be easier to estimate
than mutual informations which are notoriously hard to estimate reliably.

\section{Numerical Examples}

The aim of this section is to see numerically whether there exists
any relationship between the `activity' defined in the last section,
and a driver/response relationship. In principle there should exist
such a relationship, since we have argued that the system with higher
dimension should be more active, and usually the response does have
higher dimension. This would agree with the conclusion of \cite{schiff},
and contradict \cite{quyen1,quyen2}. But it is well known that
observed attractor dimensions can be quite different from real ones,
in particular if one has only a finite amount of noisy data and weakly
coupled systems \cite{lorenz91}.

In order to obtain results which can be easily compared to those of
\cite{schiff,quyen1,quyen2}, we study the same systems as these
authors.

\subsection{Lorenz Driven by R\"{o}ssler}

As a first example, we studied the unidirectionally coupled systems
proposed in reference \cite{quyen2}. The driver is an
autonomous  R\"{o}ssler system with equations:
\bea
\dot{x}_1 &= & - \alpha \{ x_2 + x_3 \}           \nonumber  \\
\dot{x}_2 &= & \alpha \{x_1 + 0.2 \; x_2 \}      \\
\dot{x}_3 &= & \alpha \{0.2 + x_3 ( x_1 - 5.7 ) \} \nonumber
\label{eq:rossler}
\eea
\noindent
which drives a Lorenz system in which the equation for $\dot{y}_2$ is
augmented by a driving term involving $x_2$,
\bea
\dot{y}_1 &= & 10 (-y_1 + y_2)                    \nonumber \\
\dot{y}_2 &= & 28 \; y_1 - y_2 - y_1 \; y_3 + C \; x_2^2   \\
\dot{y}_3 &= & y_1 \; y_2 - \frac{8}{3} y_3 .     \nonumber
\label{eq:Lorenz}
\eea

The unidirectional coupling is introduced in the last term of the
second equation, the constant $C$ being its strength. Notice that
$x_2$ enters quadratically in the coupling, whence it cannot be
written as a univalent function of $y_1, y_2, y_3$, and $\dot{y}_2$.
Thus we do not have a strict argument telling us that $D_{\bY}\geq
D_{\bX}$, but the latter seems extremely likely.

As in reference \cite{quyen2} the parameter $\alpha$ is introduced in
order to control the relative frequencies between the two systems.
The differential equations were iterated, together with the equations
for the tangent vectors, by using fourth and
fifth order Runge-Kutta algorithms with $\Delta t = 0.003 - 0.009$. This was
checked to yield numerically stable results, while larger $\Delta t$ and/or
a third order algorithm would have given different results. In
order to eliminate transients, the first $10^6$ iterations
were discarded. From the increase of the tangent vectors during
the following $10^6$ iterations we obtained the Lyapunov exponents.
Delay vectors with delay $\tau=0.3$ and embedding dimensions 4 and 5
were constructed from $x_1(t)$ and $y_1(t)$. This delay corresponds
to roughly 1/4 of the average period of the Lorenz equations. All
time sequences had length $N=5000$. In order to check for stability
and for very long transients, all computations were repeated several
times with different initial conditions.

For the parameters considered here, the Lyapunov exponents of the
R\"ossler are $\lambda_i \approx 0.09\alpha,\; 0,\; -5\alpha$; and the
ones of the Lorenz without coupling are $\lambda_i \approx 0.84,\; 0,\; -14.5$.
Figure~\ref{fig:rololyap} shows the maximum Lyapunov exponent of the
driven Lorenz system, as a function of the coupling strength $C$.
The continuous curve shows the result for $\alpha=6$, the
broken one corresponds to $\alpha=10$. For generalized synchronization,
the maximum Lyapunov exponent should be negative. When $\alpha = 10$,
this is observed for $2.1<C<2.7$ and for $c>2.9$.
For all values of $C$ considered in fig.~\ref{fig:rololyap}, the
maximal Lyapunov exponent of the driven system is larger than the
smallest one of the driver, and therefore we have only weak
synchronization.

Figure~\ref{fig:rolopred} shows the interdependencies $S(\bX|\bY)$,
$S(\bY|\bX)$, $H(\bX|\bY)$ and $H(\bY|\bX)$ for $\alpha = 6$ and $\alpha=10$, and for
different number of nearest neighbors. The embedding dimension was $m=5$.
In all panels, lines with crosses (lower curves) are for $S$ and lines with
squares (upper curves) are
for $H$; the dark lines denote $(\bY|\bX)$ interdependencies and the grey lines
are for $(\bX|\bY)$. All interdependencies rise with the coupling strength,
with only few exceptions. These exceptions (at $C\approx 2.5$ for $\alpha = 6$
and at $2.3<C<2.8$ for $\alpha = 10$) occur exactly at places where the
maximal Lyapunov exponent of the driven system is non-monotonic. Thus the
dependencies are monotonic functions of the Lyapunov exponent. The measure
$S$ is more sensitive to the sign of the Lyapunov exponent than is $H$, as
seen from the sharper increase of $S$ when the Lyapunov exponent passes through
zero and the systems synchronize.

In reference \cite{quyen2} this system was studied only for $\alpha=6$ and
$C=8$. The latter corresponds to very strong coupling. It was found that
the interdependence of $\bY$ from $\bX$ was larger than vice versa. This was
taken as a proof that in general the response depends more on the driver
than vice versa, and it was proposed that this result could
be used as a general method to detect driver/response relations.

Our results with $S$ and $H$ agree perfectly with those of \cite{quyen2},
if we keep the same values for $\alpha$ and $C$, and use $k\ge 20$, i.e. for
large neighborhoods. In case of $S$ we find $S(\bY|\bX)\ge S(\bX|\bY)$ for all $k$
and $\alpha$, provided $C>5$. Finally, we also find the same
inequality $S(\bY|\bX)>S(\bX|\bY)$ for very small couplings (below the synchronization
threshold), while the opposite inequality sometimes holds for intermediate $C$.

A more consistent picture is seen in the behavior of $H(\bX|\bY)$ and $H(\bY|\bX)$.
Except in the case $\alpha=6, C>4$, and $k\ge 20$, we always found
$H(\bX|\bY) > H(\bY|\bX)$, in agreement with the prediction of \cite{schiff}.
This inequality is most pronounced for small values of $C$.

Our results can be understood by the following heuristic arguments:
\begin{itemize}
\item For strong couplings the two systems are so strongly synchronized
that the differences in interdependence are small, and we can predict $\bX$
from $\bY$ essentially as well as $\bY$ from $\bX$.
\item The theoretical predictions $H(\bX|\bY) > H(\bY|\bX)$ and $S(\bX|\bY) > S(\bY|\bX)$
are based on the limiting behavior for small neighborhoods. It is thus
not too surprising that they can be violated for large values of $k$.
\item For uncoupled systems ($C=0$) one has $S(\bX|\bY) < S(\bY|\bX)$ if
$D_{\bf X} < D_{\bY}$ and vice versa. Notice that this (which is easily obtained
from eq.(\ref{knd})) is the opposite of what we expect if
$D_{\bf X} < D_{\bY}$ holds only due to the coupling.
In our case, $D_{\rm Roessler}  \approx 2.018 < D_{\rm Lorenz}  \approx 2.058$.
This explains why $S(\bX|\bY) < S(\bY|\bX)$ for very small $C$ ($C<1$).
In contrast, $H(\bX|\bY) =H(\bY|\bX)=0$ for uncoupled systems, whence no such
problem exists for $H$. Thus we expect that the behavior of $H(\bX|\bY)$ at small
couplings is easier to interpret than the behavior of $S$ which should depend
nontrivially on $k$ and $N$. This is precisely what we found.

\end{itemize}

\subsection{Two Coupled Henon Maps}

As a second example we studied two unidirectionally coupled Henon
maps similar to the ones proposed in \cite{schiff}, with equations

\bea
x'_1 &=& 1.4 - x_1^2 + b_1 \; x_2          \nonumber \\
x'_2 &=& x_1
\label{eq:henon1}
\eea

\noindent
for the driver, and

\bea
y'_1 &=& 1.4 - (C\;x_1y_1 + (1-C)\;y_1^2) + b_2 \; y_2          \nonumber \\
y'_2 &=& y_1
\label{eq:henon2}
\eea

\noindent
for the response. Again we discarded the first $10^6$ iterations, and obtained
Lyapunov exponents from the next $10^6$. Interdependencies were
then estimated from $N=5000$ iterations, using 3-dimensional delay
vectors.
As in the previous example, the stability of the results was checked
by starting from different initial conditions.
For calculating the interdependencies
we used $k=10$ nearest neighbors. No significant changes were observed
for other values of $k$.

The constants $b_1$ and $b_2$ were both set
to 0.3 when analyzing identical systems, and to 0.3, 0.1 when
analyzing non-identical ones. Furthermore, in all cases we also studied
how the results changed if white measurement noise was added either to
the driver, to the response, or to both.

\subsubsection{Identical systems}

We first studied the case $b_1=b_2=0.3$. This is the ``canonical"
value for the Henon map, for which $\lambda_1=0.4192$ and $D=1.26$.
One easily sees that $(y_1,y_2)=(x_1,x_2)$
is a solution of eqs.(\ref{eq:henon1},\ref{eq:henon2}). Thus we
can have identical synchronization \cite{pecora}, but due to the
asymmetry of the coupling we cannot rule out non-identical (generalized)
synchronization either.

Figure~\ref{fig:hehelyap} (solid line) shows the maximum Lyapunov
exponent of the response system.
It becomes negative for couplings larger than 0.7, when identical
synchronization between the systems takes place. But it is also
slightly negative for $0.47<C<0.52$. Plotting differences $x_1-y_1$,
e.g., one sees that there is no identical synchronization in this
window. But making a cut through the attractor of the combined
system, by plotting e.g. pairs $(x_2,y_2)$ whenever $|x_1|<10^{-4}$,
one sees a fractal structure which clearly shows that there is no
identical synchronization. On the other hand, $\lambda_1^{(\bY)}<0$ which
leaves only the possibility of generalized
synchronization. In this window $(0.47<C<0.52)$, the Kaplan-Yorke
formula gives $D\approx 2.25$, showing that this synchronization is weak.
For $C>0.7$, the Kaplan-Yorke formula
does of course not apply to the combined system and $D=D_{\rm Henon}=1.26$.

Interdependencies are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:hehepred}A and fig.~\ref{fig:hehepred}D.
As expected, we see that $S$ and $H$ both rise sharply at $C\geq 0.7$, where
identical synchronization sets in. The fact that synchronization is perfect
is seen from the fact that $S(\bY|\bX)=1$ for $C\geq 0.7$. In contrast, we
do not see any anomaly for $C\approx 0.5$, showing again that the synchronization
at $c\approx 0.5$ is very weak indeed.
For $C<0.7$ we see that $H(\bX|\bY) > H(\bY|\bX)$, in agreement
with our general prejudice that the response has higher dimension and is
thus more active. Although not so pronounced, this difference is also
seen for $S$.

We also analyzed how both measures changed with the inclusion of
measurement noise ($S/N$ amplitude ratio $ \sim 25 \% $).
Figs.~\ref{fig:hehepred}B and 4E show the results when the noise
is added to the driver and figs.\ref{fig:hehepred}C and 4F when it is
added to the response. In general, we expect of course a decrease
of any dependences when noise is added. Formally, we have to discuss
how $R^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)$, $R^{(k)}(\bY|\bX)$, $R^{(k)}(\bX)$, and
$R(\bX)$ change if noise is added to $\bX$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $R(\bX)$ changes very little, since $S/N \ll 1$;
\item $R^{(k)}(\bX)$ increases strongly, since the dimension of the
noisy time series is large;
\item $R^{(k)}(\bX|\bY)$ increases little if $\bX$ and $\bY$ are weakly
dependent (it is already large), but increases even more than $R^{(k)}(\bX)$
if $\bX$ and $\bY$ are strongly dependent.
\item The last is also true for $R^{(k)}(\bY|\bX)$.
\end{itemize}

From these we see that $H(\bY|\bX)$ should decrease roughly as much as
$H(\bX|\bY)$, and this decrease should be strongest if $\bX$ and $\bY$
are fully synchronized. In contrast, $S(\bX|\bY)$ should decrease much less
(or even increase) if noise is added to $\bX$, and if $\bX$ and $\bY$ are
weakly dependent. If $\bX$ and $\bY$ are fully synchronized, adding noise
to $\bX$ suppresses $S(\bY|\bX)$ much more than $S(\bX|\bY)$ since the
strong increase of $R^{(k)}(\bY|\bX)$ is then not compensated by any change
of $R(\bY)$. Adding noise to $\bY$ can be discussed similarly.
All these predictions are fully verified in fig.4. Notice that measurement
noise can reverse the general inequality $H({\rm driver}|{\rm response})
> H({\rm response}|{\rm driver})$, as seen e.g. in fig.\ref{fig:hehepred}E
for $C>0.7$.

In general, $S$ seems to be less robust against measurement noise than $H$.

\subsubsection{Non identical systems}

Figures~\ref{fig:hehepred1}A and 5D show dependencies for different
$b$-parameters ($b_1=0.3, b_2=0.1$) where identical synchronization
is impossible, and where the driver has higher dimension than the
uncoupled response.
In this case, the interdependencies do not increase as sharply as
in the previous case, and they reach lower values.
With both measures we see an increase between $C=0.1-0.4$ in agreement
with the negative values of the maximum Lyapunov exponent for these
coupling strengths (see fig.\ref{fig:hehelyap}).
As in reference \cite{schiff}, we found $S(\bX|\bY) > S(\bY|\bX)$ and
$H(\bX|\bY) > H(\bY|\bX)$.
These inequalities still hold when adding measurement noise to the driver
(fig.\ref{fig:hehepred1}B,E). But when the noise is added to the
response (fig.\ref{fig:hehepred1}C,F), only the inequality for
$H$ survives, while that for $S$ is reversed.  These dependences on noise can be
discussed in complete analogy with the previous case of identical systems.

The situation changes slightly if the uncoupled response has higher
dimension than the driver, as in the case $b_1=0.1, b_2=0.3$ shown
in fig.~\ref{fig:hehepred2}. The panels of this figure show more
structure than those of fig.\ref{fig:hehepred1}, mainly since also the
Lyapunov exponent shows more structure (see fig.\ref{fig:hehelyap}).
From fig.~\ref{fig:hehepred2}F we see that there is a parameter window,
$0.4\leq C\leq 0.6$, where $H(\bY|\bX) > H(\bX|\bY)$ after adding
noise to $\bY$. This is not yet understood, but all other features in this
plot can be understood heuristically along the lines discussed above.

\section{Conclusion}

In this work we studied the possibility of predicting driver/response
relationships from asymmetries in nonlinear interdependence measures.
More precisely, we studied two particular interdependence measures,
introduced in \cite{arnhold}, and applied them to simple asymmetrically
coupled strange attractors.
In contrast to previous works, we find that such predictions are not always
reliable, although we agree with \cite{schiff} that they would be possible
for ideal (noise-free, infinitely long) data. We agree with
\cite{quyen1,quyen2} as far as one of their numerical examples is
concerned, but we show that this was a mere coincidence, and cannot
be generalized.

Instead, we confirmed the conjecture of \cite{arnhold} that asymmetries
in interdependence measures reflect mainly the different degrees of
complexity of the two systems {\it at the level of resolution at
which these measures are most sensitive}. For practical applications,
this is not the infinitely fine level at which theoretical arguments
like those of \cite{schiff} apply. The latter predict correctly
that the response is more complex, i.e. has a higher Kaplan-Yorke dimension.
But this argument can become irrelevant even for the extremely simple
toy models which we studied in the present paper. It should be even
less relevant in realistic situations where all sorts of noise,
non-stationarity, and shortness of data present additional
limitations.

Nevertheless, we propose that asymmetries of measured interdependencies can
be very useful in understanding coupled systems. Indications for this were
given in \cite{schiff,quyen1,quyen2,arnhold}. All these papers were
dealing with neurophysiology. Even if no causal relationships can be
deduced from such asymmetries, it was found in \cite{quyen1,quyen2,arnhold}
that the resulting patterns are closely related to clinical observations,
and could e.g. contribute to a more precise localization of epileptic
foci and might be useful for predicting epileptic seizures.

An unexpected result of our study is that for the simulations
performed the measure $H(\bX|\bY)$ which
had not done very well in preliminary tests is actually more robust and
easier to interpret than the measure $S(\bX|\bY)$ which was mostly
used in \cite{arnhold}.
However, this should not be directly extended to real life data.
A more systematic comparative study with a large database of EEGs from
 epilepsy patients is under way.

\newpage


\section{The topologycal monopole}

Any derivation of the Dirac Quantization condition [1], $eg/c=n\hbar /2$
(where $e$ is the electric charge, $g$ the magnetic flux and $n=0,\pm 1,\pm
2,...$), is based on two steps: First, one has to calculate the angular
momentum due to the fields; Second, to quantize it through Schroedinger
Quantum Mechanics (for instance).

The first step was first performed in 1904 when J. J. Thomson [2] derived
the term $e\mathbf{v\times B}$ known as the magnetic part of the Lorentz
force upon an electric charge ($\mathbf{B}$ is the magnetic field and $%
\mathbf{v}$ the charge's velocity, both relative to the inertial laboratory
system). The angular momentum of the field resulting from an electric charge
and a magnetic monopole (or simply, monopole) can be written as the volume
integral of the angular momentum density $\mathbf{r\times (E\times B)}/4\pi
c $, with $\mathbf{r}=(x,y,z)$ (the position vector) and $\mathbf{E}$ the
electric field. It results the total angular momentum stored in the field
for this system is $eg/c$. Considering the angular momentum part due to the
particles has to compensate the one of the fields, Thomson derived the
magnetic Lorentz term which leads to a variation of the angular momentum of $%
2eg/c$ for the particles in order to preserve the conservation of the total
angular momentum of the system.

The second step towards the definition of the Dirac Quantization Condition
is to consider Wave Mechanichs as valid for particles, [1]. Any gauge change
on the electromagnetic potentials leaves the Schroedinger equation invariant
if the wave functions are altered as $\psi \rightarrow \psi ^{\prime }=\psi
\exp \left[ ie\phi /\hbar c\right] $, where $\phi $ is the gauge function.
It is clear that, once the phase $e\phi /\hbar c$ has no dimension, $\phi $
is directly connected to some magnetic flux. In the system of one charge and
one monopole this magnetic flux is $4\pi g$, and requiring the phase must be
unaltered by the presence of the monopole, i.e., that the phase change due
to monopole's presence must be a multiple of $2\pi $, one gets the Dirac
Quantization Condition, [1]. It has been considered this condition makes the
gauge due to the monopole just an artifact. Accordingly, it was shown by
other approaches (Wu and Yang's, [3]) that if such condition is observed the
monopole is a topologycal set-up of the gauge fields, being the monopole's
gauge not observable.

It is interesting to quote this condition was derived by Dirac [1] and
Wu-Yang [3] in order to the charges never cross a singularity on the vector
potential gauge associated to the monopoles. In Brandt and Primack's work,
[4], it was shown also that the two approaches are equivalent. In Dirac's
approach the wave functions of the charges are set to be exactly null on the
singular part of the vector field, while in Wu-Yang's a Fiber-Bundle
description is given as the traduction of this condition. In fact, it is
impossible to define a monopole through a vector potential (from which the
magnetic field is to be derived) free of singularities in $\mathbf{R}^{3}$
(the three-dimensional flat world), [3], and Dirac Quantization Condition
makes the singularity non-observable.

As the approaches of Dirac, [1] and Wu-Yang, [3], are equivalent, [4], we
proceed considering the consequences in assuming the existence of a monopole
$g$ and the condition $eg/c=n\hbar /2$. He, Qiu and Tze, [5], considered
this situation and showed it is impossible to get $g\neq 0$ in pure Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED). It can be demonstrated that the longitudinal photon
field does not alter Physics in a gauge-invariant theory as QED, [5], so the
unphysical gauge coupling (which has an arbitrary value) associated to this
field is not observable. It was shown however, [5], that in deriving the
Dirac Quantization Condition, this unphysical gauge coupling appears related
to the monopole flux in the same way it appears for the physical electric
charge in the usual relation $eg/c=n\hbar /2$. This is due to the fact the
non-integrable phase for the particle with charge $e$ in the presence of the
fields $A_{\mu }$ (physical) and $[A_{0}]_{\mu }$ (unphysical logitudinal
field) can be written as:
\begin{equation}
P(x_{2},x_{1};C)=\exp \left[ i\frac{e}{\hbar c}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}A_{\mu
}(x)dx^{\mu }+i\frac{e_{0}}{\hbar c}\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}[A_{0}]_{\mu
}(x)dx^{\mu }\right]
\end{equation}
where the line-integral is along the path $C$ from $x_{1}$ to $x_{2}$. For a
closed loop $C$, equation (1) gives:
\begin{equation}
P(x,x;C)=\exp \left[ i\frac{e}{\hbar c}\int_{a}F_{\mu \nu }da^{\mu \nu
}\right]
\end{equation}
where $F_{\mu \nu }$ is the electromagnetic field strenght and $a$ is the
area bounded by $C$. Now $P$ is $U(1)$ gauge-invariant as the unphysical
field $[A_{0}]_{\mu }$makes no contribution, [5].

Now consider we are going to measure the magnetic flux over the area $a$, $%
\int \mathbf{B\cdot da}$, knowing that $\mathbf{B=\nabla \times A}$, and
that $\mathbf{A=A+\nabla }\varphi $, where $\varphi $ represents the
gauge-freedom for the vector potential. The measure of the magnetic flux can
be written as:
\begin{equation}
\int \mathbf{\nabla \times A\cdot da}
\end{equation}

According to Wu and Yang, [3], for each point over the surface $a$ we must
choose $\mathbf{A}$ such that no singularity is visited on going over the
surface, i.e., if some point which will be considered is the place occupied
by the singular string on this surface, the gauge changing (from one
previous point to this) must respect the condition $eg/c=n\hbar /2$ (a $2\pi
$ change of phase), in a way that the string is moved to another place in $%
\mathbf{R}^{3}$. This way no singularity is seen, the term associated to the
longitudinal field makes no contribution and the Dirac Quantization
Condition is respected, [3].

According to reference [5], this is wrong. It is clear that the
tranformation from equation (1) to (2) is only possible if the Stokes
theorem can be applied, and unfortunately, $\mathbf{A}$ is not a continuous
function to support such theorem. It changes abruptly from one point to the
next in space due to the gauge changing necessary to hide the singularity
associated to the monopole's definition. The Stokes theorem cannot be
applied, therefore the unphysical gauge coupling $e_{0}$ cannot be
disregarded and will appear connect to the magnetic flux $4\pi g$ as $%
e_{0}g/c=n\hbar /2$, [5]. It is easy to see that if primary the gauge is $%
\mathbf{A}_{1}=\mathbf{\phi }g(1-\cos \theta )/r\sin \theta $, for $\theta
<\pi -\varepsilon $, and changes to $\mathbf{A}_{2}=-\mathbf{\phi }g(1+\cos
\theta )/r\sin \theta $, for $\theta >\varepsilon $, for some electric
charge's path in the region of the overlap of the two gauges ($\varepsilon $
is some arbitrary angle), one goes suddenly from $G(1-Y)\mathbf{\phi }$ to $%
G(-1-Y)\mathbf{\phi }$ (if $G\equiv g/r\sin \theta $, and $Y\equiv \cos
\theta $). The only possible solution for this situation is to set $g=0$ as
in reference [5], otherwise a physical interpretation must be assumed for $%
e_{0}$ in pure QED since we get both $eg/c=n\hbar /2$ and $e_{0}g/c=n\hbar
/2 $.

In the next section an alternative approach to such problem is addressed. It
is shown the gauge invariance is broken because longitudinal fields are
related to the monopole's definition. We then proceed considering the case $
g\neq 0$ and an interpretation is addressed. If the string of sigularities
is not to be seen, some physical reason (strange to pure QED) must be given
for this to happen.

\section{The definition of a Dirac monopole}

In the following steps we will start from the Maxwell equations in the
vacuum and consider the necessary conditions for the existence of a monopole
with $g\neq 0$. We do so because the definition $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{\nabla }%
\times \mathbf{A}$ was first derived from the condition $\mathbf{\nabla
\cdot B}=0$. The departure equations are those which describe photons in the
usual theory (gauge invariant). At the end, after defining the composition
of fields and conditions which define the monopole, one desires part of the
flux of its field (the returning flux) to be associated to the arbitrary
gauge of the system in a way the definition of the monopole is free of
singularities (the returning flux) in a topologycal manner, [3]. In the next
steps it will become clear that in order to define a monopole, the gauge
invariance must be broken and as a consequence this violation is not only
connected to the magnetic charge but with the monopole mass.

\subsection{Basic construction of a monopole}

The electromagnetic fields, solution of the wave equation $[\nabla
^{2}-\partial ^{2}/\partial (ct)^{2}]F=0$, can be described by a multipole
expansion with:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{B}_{lm} &=&\Omega e^{-i\omega t}f_{l}(kr)\mathbf{L}Y_{lm} \\
\mathbf{E}_{lm} &=&\frac{i}{k}\mathbf{\nabla \times B}_{lm}  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega $ is a constant, $\mathbf{L}=\frac{1}{i}\mathbf{r\times \nabla
}$, $Y_{lm}$ is the spherical harmonic of the order $l,m$ and $f_{l}$ a
Hankel plus Bessel type solution. The parameter $k$ is $\omega /c$ and $%
\left( r,t\right) $ the spherical coordinate of distance and time in the
laboratory frame. Taking the Hankel solutions, the fields $\mathbf{E}_{10}$,
$\mathbf{B}_{10}$ can be approximated in the $kr<<1$, $r\neq 0$, region by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{B}_{1,0} &=&e^{-i\omega t}(-\Omega )k\mathbf{L}Y_{10}/r^{2} \\
\mathbf{E}_{1,0} &=&e^{-i\omega t}(-\Omega )\mathbf{\nabla }\left(
Y_{10}/r^{2}\right)   \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The $\mathbf{E}_{1,0}$ solution is exactly the field of a dipole in this
approximation and it is also written as:
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\omega t}(-\Omega )\mathbf{\nabla }\left( Y_{10}/r^{2}\right) =(3%
\mathbf{n}(\mathbf{p}\cdot \mathbf{n})-\mathbf{p})/r^{3}
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{p}\equiv \sqrt{3/4\pi }e^{-i\omega t}\Omega \mathbf{z}$ ($|%
\mathbf{z|=1}$) and $\mathbf{n}$ is the unitary vector directioned from the
origin to $\mathbf{r}$.

It is possible to construct a sum of solutions $\mathbf{E}_{1,0}$ (with the
corresponding magnetic field associated to it) composed over a line path
over the space. The $\mathbf{E}_{1,0}$ may also be written as $\mathbf{%
\nabla }\times [\mathbf{p\times r}/r^{3}]$ and it is possible to introduce
an elementary contribution like:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{\nabla }\times [\mathbf{dp\times r}/r^{3}] \\
\mathbf{dp} &\equiv &\sqrt{3/4\pi }e^{-i\omega t}\Omega \lambda \mathbf{dl}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda $ is a density and $\mathbf{dl}$ the elementary oriented path
of some line in space. Defining the line path along the $z$ axis from zero
to $-L$ ($L>0,$ $L<<1/k$), the resulting electric field $\mathbf{E}_{line}$
in the region $kr<<1$ will be:
\begin{equation}
q\left( \frac{\mathbf{r}}{4\pi r^{3}}-\frac{\mathbf{r}+L\mathbf{z}}{4\pi |%
\mathbf{r}+L\mathbf{z}|^{3}}+\delta (x)\delta (y)[\Theta (-z)-\Theta (-z-L)]%
\mathbf{z}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\Theta (x)$ is the Heaviside function, $\delta (x)$ is the Dirac
Delta function and $q=\sqrt{3/4\pi }e^{-i\omega t}\Omega \lambda $. From
this expression it is possible to calculate the magnetic field as $\mathbf{%
\nabla \times B}=-i\omega \mathbf{E}_{line}/c$ for $kr<<1$. There are of
course other components for the fields (other terms besides the first of the
Hankel function for $x=kr<<1,$ $-(2l-1)!!(1-x^{2}/(2-4l)+...)/x^{l+1})$,
which are small as the difference $r<<1/k$ is pronounced.

Consider now an infinite set of elementary $\mathbf{E}_{line}$ solutions in
a way the lines are isotropically distributed on the radial direction with
the ends $dq$ at the origin of the coordinate system and the $-dq$ ends at
the far infinite, away from the origin. This construction defines what we
could call as a radial system of currents with spherical symmetry. In this
particular situation the first order contribution to the magnetic field is
null due to the symmetry of the construction.

Louis de Broglie proposed the similar oscillating electric charge situation,
[6], calculating the electric field in space out of the places where there
is a inward flux. Consider $A^{\mu }=(V,\mathbf{A})$ such that (in spherical
coordinates):
\begin{eqnarray}
V &\sim &-\frac{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}}{k_{0}^{2}}\frac{e^{i(\kappa ct-|\mathbf{k}%
|r)}}{r} \\
A_{r} &\sim &\frac{i\kappa }{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}}\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}
\nonumber \\
A_{\theta } &=&A_{\phi }=0  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $\kappa ^{2}=|\mathbf{k}|^{2}+k_{0}^{2}$, where $k_{0}$ is a parameter
related to the mass $m$ of the longitudinal field by $k_{0}=mc/\hbar $. In
guided wave problems the parameter $k_{0}$ is related to the constraint
given by the walls which guide the wave. The electric field derived from $%
A^{\mu }$ has only radial component different from zero and will be:
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{r} &\sim &\left[ \frac{1}{r^{2}}+\frac{i|\mathbf{k}|}{r}\right]
e^{i(\kappa ct-|\mathbf{k}|r)} \\
E_{\theta } &=&E_{\phi }=0  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and the magnetic field is null. If $\mathbf{k}$ approaches to zero, $\kappa $
approaches to $k_{0}$, so that in this limit:
\begin{equation}
E_{r}\sim \frac{1}{r^{2}}e^{ik_{0}ct}
\end{equation}
which is the same result developed above for the electric field in places
outside the inward flux and with $r<<1/k$.

It interesting to make the change from the Transverse-Magnetic solutions at
the begining to the Transverse-Electric ones, $\mathbf{E}^{TM}\rightarrow -%
\mathbf{B}^{TE}$, $\mathbf{B}^{TM}\rightarrow \mathbf{E}^{TE}$, from which
we obtain the same physics for $g=-\sqrt{3/4\pi }e^{-i\omega t}\Omega
\lambda $, as we got for $q$. Now we are close to define a monopole. It is
first necessary to make $\omega \rightarrow 0$ in order the outward (inward)
magnetic flux be as constant as desidered ($g\rightarrow -\sqrt{3/4\pi }%
\Omega \lambda $). It is now necessary to create conditions for the
returning flux not to be seen. It is important to remember that the geometry
of the construction eliminates the leading contribution for the resulting
electric field. It is clear that in the given conditions the measure $|%
\mathbf{B}|^{2}-|\mathbf{E}|^{2}$ is no longer zero. In the de Broglie's
example, [6], $|\mathbf{E}|^{2}-|\mathbf{B}|^{2}\neq 0$, then the field
associated to the construction is longitudinal. If one defines the vector
potential [6], $A_{x}=A_{0}e^{i(\kappa ct-|\mathbf{k}|z)},A_{y}=A_{z}=0$,
the electric and magnetic fields result: $E_{x}=-i\kappa A_{0}e^{i(\kappa
ct-|\mathbf{k}|z)}$, $B_{y}=-i|\mathbf{k}|A_{0}e^{i(\kappa ct-|\mathbf{k}|z)}
$, and so $|\mathbf{E}|^{2}-|\mathbf{B}|^{2}=k_{0}^{2}|\mathbf{A}|^{2}$,
with $\kappa ^{2}=|\mathbf{k}|^{2}+k_{0}^{2}$, i.e., if $k_{0}\neq 0$. The
mass related to this gauge dependent object is $k_{0}\hbar /c$. In the
magnetic case, $|\mathbf{B}|^{2}-|\mathbf{E}|^{2}\neq 0$ and we arrive at
the same conclusion about the mass associated to the field since by the
present approach the charges (electric or magnetic) are defined starting
from the Maxwell equations in the vacuum, and so vector potentials can be
assigned to each field.

Now it is clear the conclusions in the pioneer work of He, Qiu and Tze, [5],
follows. In defining a monopole from the construction above, the inward flux
lines must be non-observable. The magnetic field is purelly longitudinal, so
the relation (now with $e$ as the electron's electric charge) $eg/c=n\hbar /2
$ for $g\neq 0$ ($g$ well approximated as constant in time for Physics once
we define $1/\omega \rightarrow \infty $) violates the gauge invariance
principle, a fundamental principle in Quantum Electrodynamics. If this
principle is broken by the presence of a monopole, attempts (like in
reference [3]) to make the Dirac string an artifact (non-observable) are
wrong.

\subsection{One-string description and quantization of the mass}

Now consider the line path which defines equation (8) to be defined as a
round loop - it is made when one joins the ends of the line path defined for
the elementary solution (7). In this new situation the magnetic field
results to be (for a round loop centered at the origin on the $x-y$ plane
with some radius $a$):
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{loop}^{r} &=&\frac{Ia^{2}}{2}\frac{\cos \theta }{r^{3}} \\
B_{loop}^{\theta } &=&\frac{Ia^{2}}{4}\frac{\sin \theta }{r^{3}}  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

where $I\equiv -i\sqrt{3/4\pi }e^{-i\omega t}\lambda \Omega \omega /c$ and
it is considered the $a<<r<<1/k$ region.

Consider now that a solenoid made up of such loops is defined over space
(which symmetry axis follows a line over the $z$ axis) from the origin to $%
z=-\mathcal{L}$ with a density $\sigma $ of solenoids per unity distance
along its axis. Taking $\mathcal{L}<<1/k$ and $a\rightarrow 0$ the magnetic
field is:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{B}_{solenoid}=g\left( \frac{\mathbf{r}}{4\pi r^{3}}-\frac{\mathbf{r}+%
\mathcal{L}\mathbf{z}}{4\pi |\mathbf{r}+\mathcal{L}\mathbf{z}|^{3}}+\delta
(x)\delta (y)[\Theta (-z)-\Theta (-z-\mathcal{L})]\mathbf{z}\right)
\end{equation}

with
\begin{equation}
g=\Upsilon \frac{\omega }{c}\sin \omega t
\end{equation}

or
\[
g=\Upsilon \frac{\omega }{c}\cos \omega t
\]

where $\Upsilon $ is defined to be constant and equal to $\sqrt{3/4\pi }%
a^{2}\sigma \Omega \lambda /4$ when the parameters $\sigma $ and $\lambda $
are set to compensate variations on the parameter $a$. The electric field is
null except at the solenoid (where it is infinite, i.e., not defined) in
this approximation ($r<<1/k$).

As in the last subsection, in order to describe an oscilating magnetic
charge at the origin of the coordinate system it is necessary to define at
least a line of returning flux of magnetic field as well as to take $r<<1/k$%
. In the present construction $\mathbf{\nabla \cdot B}_{solenoid}=0$
everywhere.

Now, following the initial proposal of this section, one wants to associate
the returning magnetic flux to the gauge (arbitrary) in a way it is possible
to define a topologycal monopole. The first step towards this is to make $%
\omega \rightarrow 0$, and to make $\mathcal{L}\rightarrow \infty $. The
same problem raised in the last section happens in the one-string
description too: The measure $|\mathbf{B}|^{2}-|\mathbf{E}|^{2}$ is
different from zero and so the resulting field related to the monopole is
purelly longitudinal. If the string is not seen due to some mechanism, the
quantization condition is related to the longitudinal field only, and so,
taking $g\neq 0$ one is assuming the gauge has some physical interpretation.

It is important to consider the case such mechanism exists. It is then
natural to consider the relation $eg/c=n\hbar /2$ ($e$ the electron's charge
- this means a gauge is chosen) when $\omega \rightarrow 0$ in order $g$
variation in time is less than our precision detection:
\begin{equation}
g=\Upsilon \omega /c=\Upsilon mc/\hbar =n\hbar c/2e
\end{equation}

which leads to:
\begin{equation}
m=n\hbar ^{2}/2\Upsilon e
\end{equation}

i.e., the monopole mass must be quantized if $\Upsilon $ is constant and $%
m\rightarrow 0$. This does not mean the resulting monopole mass to be
necessarily vanishing as we will see with the help of the next section. For the sake of generality, we will just quote there are approaches pointing towards a vanishing monopole mass anyway, [7]. As it was shown magnetic monopoles as well as electric
charges can be described by the present procedure, this quantization is
defined for both types of particle's charges (with $g$ instead of $e$ in the
last expression for the case of electric charge 's particles). There is a
good reason to believe $\Upsilon $ is a constant in Nature, it is probably
related to the other constants: Another interesting consideration about the
quantization condition is that, if the minimum frequence $\omega $ possible
is $2\pi c/R_{u}$, where $R_{u}$ is the physical observable Universe's
radius, and so:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\hbar c}{e}\sim \frac{\Upsilon }{R_{u}}
\end{equation}

i.e., there must be a relation between the constants of Nature (wavelenght
of a particle) and the age of the Universe (or the magnetic charge varies
with the Universe's time scale).

\subsection{Arbitrariness in the monopole description}

Other results follow from oscillating charges as in the constructions above
once a charge (magnetic or electric) at $\mathbf{r}^{\prime }$ can be
defined through the density $\rho $ by $[\rho +\rho _{0}(t)-\rho
_{0}(t)]\delta (\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime })$, where $\rho _{0}$ is
function of the time and arbitrary in magnitude ($\delta $ is the
Dirac-delta function). It can be shown this arbitrariness means also no
topologycal mechanism is possible in case of monopoles in pure Quantum
Electrodynamics.

A null magnetic charge can be defined as the composition $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{%
A}_{1}-\mathbf{A}_{2}$ (as in the first section):
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A}=[\mathbf{\phi }g_{0}(1-\cos \theta )/r\sin \theta ]+[\mathbf{\phi
}g_{0}(1+\cos \theta )/r\sin \theta ]=\mathbf{\phi }g_{0}2/r\sin \theta
\end{equation}

i.e., two monopoles of opposite charge at the same position (at the origin
of the coordinate system), with $\varepsilon <\theta <\pi -\varepsilon $ ($%
\varepsilon $ is some arbitrary vanishing angle). The magnetic flux over a
spherical surface centered at the origin is calculated as $\oint \mathbf{A}%
\cdot \mathbf{dl}$ over a closed curve around the singular string for some $%
\varepsilon <\theta <\pi /2$ ($\theta \rightarrow \varepsilon $), plus $%
-\oint \mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{dl}$ for a closed curve around the singular
string for $\pi -\theta $, that give us zero for the net flux. This is quite
obvious to see since the surface is open by inside and outside (the first
closed curve must be integrated on the clockwise direction while the second
in the anticlockwise direction - or vice-versa) while $\mathbf{A}$ remains
the same ($\sin \theta =\sin \pi -\theta $).

The vector potential representing a non-null magnetic charge $g$ can be
defined as the sum:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \mathbf{\phi }g_{0}(1-\cos \theta )/r\sin \theta ]+[\mathbf{\phi }%
g_{0}(1+\cos \theta )/r\sin \theta ]+[\mathbf{\phi }g(1-\cos \theta )/r\sin
\theta ]
\end{equation}

with $\varepsilon <\theta <\pi -\varepsilon $ ($\varepsilon $ is some
arbitrary vanishing angle). The net magnetic charge is $g$.

Now consider in the construction above $g$ is considered independent of time
but $g_{0}=g_{0}(t)$. The vector potential will be:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{\phi [}g_{0}(t)2+g(1-\cos \theta )]/r\sin \theta ]
\end{equation}

and so the measure $\oint \mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{dl}$ around each string
will no longer be constant. The variation with time is arbitrary and so this
measure for each round loop around each string of the problem. In the case
one desires to move some of the strings off the way of particle's path, the
quantization condition cannot be applied for this particular string, and so,
it will become observable according to the picture in reference [3]. There
is an arbitrary gauge transformation instead of the one related to the Dirac
Quantization Condition. Once this condition cannot be associated to each
string but only to the net magnetic charge, conclusions in reference [3]
about the non observability of the Dirac string do not follows (the string
is not a gauge artifact which can be treated topologycally). The
arbitrariness is related to the longitudinal fields as first pointed by He,
Qiu and Tze, [5].

\section{Conclusions}

The fundamental problem now arises: Suppose there is a Dirac Monopole in
Nature. It will break gauge invariance and the Dirac string will be
observable. In what conditions has the gauge a physical interpretation and
at the same time gives a mechanism to hide the string? If the string of
sigularities is not to be seen, some physical reason (strange to pure
Quantum Electrodynamics) must be given for this to happen once now the
mechanism of Dirac or Wu-Yang, [3], fails. Is this physical reason
accounting for the gauge interpretation?

The answer relies on the longitudinal field interpretation we arrived at the
end of our attempt to built a monopole. To the longitudinal field there is
associated a mass $\omega \hbar /c^{2}$. The gauge has the physical
interpretation to be related to the mass and the charge of the monopole. Can
the mass produce the mechanism to make the returning flux non-observable? In
a recent work we attempt to show that in fact a mass can hide the Dirac
string, [8]. The gravitational effect of the mass makes not all the flat
three-dimensional world avaliable due to the distortion of the spacetime. In
the construction of fields of the last section the Hankel type of solutions
make the inward flux lines regions not defined for fields (in the
construction of fields of the one-string section the Hankel type of
solutions make the solenoid region not defined for fields and the string has
naturally some internal volume). In the reffered work, [8], we propose the
string, which is a place where the fields are not defined in the
three-dimensional flat world, is the same place the spacetime is also not
defined due to the gravitation provoked by the monopole mass.

In another recent work, [9], we propose there are Dirac monopoles in Nature
(in fact everywhere) i.e., in the electrons. It is discussed the spin
one-half electron can be defined as composed by an electric charge and two
monopoles of opposite magnetic charge performing an objetc with electric
charge and a magnetic dipole. If such construction is possible it is very
important to consider monopoles as possible entities in Nature, and so, some
interpretations about the gauge and its connection to other forces in Nature
are to be addressed.

The relation we obtain between the electric charge and the Universe's radius
is a question to be investigated in more detail, but as Feynman used to say,
once we include gravitation to the problems, it is natural to have Mach's
principle associated. The mass quantization relation is derived directly
from Dirac Quantization Condition in the case of one-string representation.
This particular case is characterized by the fact the forbidden region (the
returning flux region) has naturally some nonzero volume in space. It is
important to observe the arbitrariness in the monopole definition as defined
in section 2.3 means that the monopole mass can be non-vanishing (in fact as
big as desidered) due to the arbitrary mass of the pair $+g_{0}$, $-g_{0}$%
. In this case it is not necessary to enforce $m\rightarrow 0$ in order
to get a a large time scale for the magnetic charge oscilation (it is enough
that only $g$ varies very slowly in time, but in this case the quantization associated to the mass is lost).

It is interesting to quote the intuition Faraday had about the connection
between Gravity and Electromagnetism, [10]. He conjectured two masses in
gravitational attraction must have a solenoidal current associated to each
body. His experiments found no result: He left solenoids of various
materials in a free fall and measured the induced current due to gravity. It
is interesting the mechanism peformed to describe monopoles and then
electrons are related to gravity in our exploration: Solenoidal currents
associated to the charges in the bodies have direct relation to their
gravity.

\section{Acknowledgements}

I would like to thank Prof. C. M. G. Lattes and Prof. W. A. Rodriguez Jr
for interesting suggestions on references and discussions.

\section{References}
.

\par [1] P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. \textbf{A133} (1931) 60

[2] J. J. Thomson, \textit{Elements of the Mathematical Theory of
Electricity and Magnetism}, Cambridge University Press, Section 284, 3rd edition (1904).

[3] T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D12} (1975) 3845

[4] R. A. Brandt and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D15} (1977) 1175

[5] H. -J. He, Z. Qiu and C. -H. Tze, Zeits. f. Phys. \textbf{C65} (1994),
\textbf{hep-ph/9402293}

[6] L. de Broglie, \textit{Ondes \'{E}letromagn\'{e}tiqu\'{e}s \& Photons},
Gauthier-Villars Paris, Chapter 3 (1968).

[7] G. Lochak, Ann. de la Found. Louis de Broglie \textbf{9}, number 1
(1984) 5.

[8] D. S. Thober, \textit{The definition of a magnetic monopole in
Eletrodynamics combined with Gravitation}, \textbf{hep-ph/9906425}

[9] D. S. Thober, \textit{The monopoles in the structure of the electron},
\textbf{hep-ph/9906377}

[10] M. Faraday, \textit{Experimental Researches in Electricity}, Series
XXIV - \S\ 30, in Great Books of the Western World, volume 45. William
Benton Publisher, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Twenty-second printing, Chigago (1978).

\end{document}


\section{ Introduction }

In the Standard Model, the electroweak interaction of $Z^0$ to
fermions
has both vector ($v$) and axial-vector ($a$) couplings.
Measurement of fermion asymmetries at the $Z^0$ resonance probe a combination
of these couplings given by
$A_f = 2v_f a_f/(v_f^2 + a_f^2)$.
The parameters $A_f$ express the extent of parity violation at the $Zff$ vertex
and provide sensitive tests of the Standard Model.

At the Born-level, the differential cross section
for the reaction $e^+e^- \rightarrow
Z^0 \rightarrow f\bar{f}$ is
$$ \sigma_f(z) \equiv d\sigma_f/dz
\propto (1-A_eP_e)(1+z^2) + 2A_f(A_e - P_e) z, $$
where $P_e$ is the longitudinal polarization of the electron beam
and $z = \cos\theta$ is the
direction of the outgoing fermion relative to the incident electron.
At the SLAC Linear Collider (SLC), the ability to manipulate the
longitudinal polarization of the electron beam allows the isolation
of the parameter $A_f$ independently
through formation of the left-right forward-backward
double asymmetry:
$ \tilde{A}_{FB}^f(z) = |P_e| A_f 2z/(1+z^2).$

In this note, we present the direct measurement of the
parity-violation parameter for $c$-quarks, $A_c$.
The tagging of $c$-quarks was performed using
exclusively reconstructed
$D^{\ast+}$, $D^+$, and $D^0$ mesons, as well as an
inclusive sample of $D^{\ast+}\rightarrow D^0 \pi_s$ decays
identified by the soft-pion ($\pi_s$).

\section{ Apparatus and event selection }
The measurement described here is based on
550k $Z^0$ decays recorded in 1993-98
with the SLC Large Detector (SLD) at the SLC $e^+e^-$ collider.
A general description of the SLD can be found elsewhere \cite{sld}.
For charged-particle tracking devices,
we use the central drift chamber (CDC)\cite{cdc} and
a pixel-based silicon vertex detector (VXD)\cite{vxd2,vxd3}.
The Liquid Argon Calorimeter (LAC)\cite{lac} measures the energy of
charged and neutral particles and is also used for electron
identification. Muon tracking is provided by the Warm Iron Calorimeter
(WIC)\cite{wic}.
The \v Cerenkov Ring Imaging Detector (CRID)\cite{crid} provides
particle identification.
The SLC was operated with a polarized electron beam and an unpolarized
positron beam \cite{SLC}.
The average polarization magnitude measured for
the 1993-98 data sample is $|P_e| = 73 \%$.

Hadronic events are selected
by requiring at least 5 charged tracks,
a total visible energy of at least 20 GeV/c, and
a thrust axis calculated from charged tracks satisfying
$|\cos\theta_{thrust}| < 0.87 $.
As $Z^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ events are also a copious source of
$D$ mesons, they represent a potential background.
We reject these events using the invariant mass of
charged tracks associated with
reconstructed secondary decay
vertices\cite{masstag1, masstag2}.
Specifically, we require that the reconstructed secondary vertices have
mass less than 2.0 GeV/c$^2$.
Our simulations show that
this cut rejects 57\% of
$b\bar{b}$ events with 99\% of the remainder being $c\bar{c}$ events.

\section{ $A_c$ measurement with exclusive charmed-meson
reconstruction}
$D^{\ast+}$ mesons are identified
via their decay $D^{\ast+} \rightarrow \pi_s^+ D^0 $
followed by:
\[\begin{array}{ll}
 D^0 \rightarrow K^- \pi^+  & ``K\pi'',\\
 D^0 \rightarrow K^- \pi^+ \pi^0 & ``Satellite'',\\
 D^0 \rightarrow K^- \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ & ``K\pi\pi\pi'', \mbox{ or} \\
 D^0 \rightarrow K^- l^+ \nu_l \hskip 0.5cm \mbox{($l$=e or $\mu$)} & ``Semileptonic''.
\end{array}\]
To form the $D^{\ast+}$ candidate, we use all tracks which
have VXD hits in one event
hemisphere.
For the $D^0$ candidate, a number of tracks corresponding to the
charged multiplicity in each $D^0$ decay mode are combined
with assuming one of them to be a kaon and the others are pions.
Only candidates with the correct charge combinations are selected.
A vertex fit is performed on the tracks in a candidate, and
we require that the combination has a $\chi^2$ probability of
all tracks coming from the same vertex be greater than 1\%.
Then if the calculated invariant mass lies within
the mass ranges of
1.765 GeV/c$^2$ $<$ m$_{D^0}$ $<$ 1.965 GeV/c$^2$ ($K\pi$),
1.500 GeV/c$^2$ $<$ m$_{D^0}$ $<$ 1.600 GeV/c$^2$ ($Satellite$),
1.795 GeV/c$^2$ $<$ m$_{D^0}$ $<$ 1.935 GeV/c$^2$
($K\pi\pi\pi$), and
1.100 GeV/c$^2$ $<$ m$_{D^0}$ $<$ 1.800 GeV/c$^2$ ($Semileptonic$),
combine with a soft-pion candidate track which has a charge
opposite to the kaon candidate, to form the
$D^{\ast+}$ candidate.

To reconstruct the $D^{\ast}$, we use two sets of selection criteria.
One is based on event kinematics and the other on event topology.
We select the combinations which satisfy either of the two.
In the former one,
we require the candidate to have $x_{D^{\ast}} > 0.4$
($K\pi$, $Satellite$, and $Semileptonic$) or 0.6 ($K\pi\pi\pi$),
where $x_{D^{\ast}}\equiv 2E_{D^{\ast}}/E_{CM}$, and
$|\cos\theta^{\ast}| < 0.9$ ($K\pi$, $Satellite$, and $Semileptonic$)
or 0.8 ($K\pi\pi\pi$),
where $\theta^{\ast}$ is the opening
angle between the direction of the $D^0$ in the lab. frame and
the kaon in the $D^0$ rest frame.
We also require the soft-pion candidate to have momentum
greater than 1 GeV/c.
In the selection based on the event topologies,
we require the reconstructed  $D^0$ vertices to have
decay length $L/\sigma_L > 2.5$, and
the $xy$ impact parameter of the $D^0$ momentum
vector to the IP to be less than 20 $\mu$m ($K\pi$ and $K\pi\pi\pi$) or
30 $\mu$m ($Satellite$ and $Semileptonic$).
Finally, a cut of $x_{D^{\ast}}>0.3$ ($K\pi$,
$Satellite$, and $Semileptonic$)
or 0.4 ($K\pi\pi\pi$) is applied.
Then the mass difference $\Delta M = M_{D^{\ast}} - M_{D^0}$ is
formed.
We regard the combination as a signal when
$\Delta M <$ 0.148 GeV/c$^2$ ($K\pi$ and $K\pi\pi\pi$), $<$ 0.155 GeV/c$^2$
($Satellite$), or $<$ 0.16 GeV/c$^2$ ($Semileptonic$).
The side-band region is defined as 0.16 $< \Delta M <$ 0.20 GeV/c$^2$
 or 0.17 $< \Delta M <$ 0.20 GeV/c$^2$ ($Semileptonic$),
to estimate random combinatoric background (RCBG)
contamination in the signal region.
The mass difference spectra for the four reconstructed $D^{\ast +}$
decay modes are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dmass}.
\begin{figure}
\epsfysize14cm
\hskip0.5in
\epsfbox{dmass.eps}
\vskip -0.5cm
\caption{The mass-difference distributions for the decay of
(a)$D^{\ast+}\rightarrow D^0 \pi_s$, $D^0 \rightarrow K\pi$,
(b)$D^0 \rightarrow K\pi\pi^0$,
(c)$D^0 \rightarrow K\pi\pi\pi$, and
(d)$D^0 \rightarrow K^- l^+ \nu_l$ ($l=$e or $\mu$).
The solid circles indicate the exp. data, and histograms are
MC of signal (open) and RCBG (hatched).}
\label{fig:dmass}
\end{figure}

The $D^+$ and $D^0$ mesons are identified via the decay of:
\[\begin{array}{l}
D^+ \rightarrow K^- \pi^+ \pi^+ \mbox{ and} \\
D^0 \rightarrow K^- \pi^+.
\end{array}\]
For the $D^+$ reconstruction, we combine two same-sign pion candidates
with an opposite-sign kaon candidate.
We apply the cuts  $x_{D^+} > 0.4$, and
$\cos\theta^{\ast} > -0.8$.
We require that the $\chi^2$ probability of the good vertex fit be
$>$ 1$\%$, and apply the $D^+$ decay length cut of $L/\sigma_L > $3.0.
The collinearity angle between the $D^+$ momentum vector and
the vertex flight direction is required
to be less than 5 mrad in $xy$ and less than 20 mrad in $rz$.

To form the $D^0$ vertices, kaon-candidate tracks identified
with the CRID are combined with another opposite-sign pion candidate.
We require $x_{D^0} > 0.4$,
$\chi^2$ probability $>$ 1$\%$, and $L/\sigma_L > $3.0.
Finally,
we require the $xy$ impact parameter of the $D^0$ momentum
vector to the IP to be less than 20 $\mu$m.
The $D^+$ and $D^0$ candidates in the ranges of
1.800 $< m(K^-\pi^+\pi^+) <$ 1.940 GeV/c$^2$ and
1.765 $< m(K^-\pi^+) <$ 1.965 GeV/c$^2$ are regarded as signals, respectively.
The sideband regions are defined as
1.640 $< m(K^-\pi^+\pi^+) <$ 1.740 GeV/c$^2$ and
2.000 $< m(K^-\pi^+\pi^+) <$ 2.100 GeV/c$^2$ for $D^+$, and
2.100 $< m(K^-\pi^+\pi^+) <$ 2.500 GeV/c$^2$ for $D^0$.
In the Fig.~\ref{fig:d+0mass},  the invariant mass spectra for
the $D^+$ and $D^0$ are plotted.
\begin{figure}
\epsfysize7.7cm
\hskip0.5in
\epsfbox{mass.eps}
\vskip -0.5cm
\caption{The mass distributions for (a)$D^+$ and (b)$D^0$ mesons.
The solid circles indicate the exp. data, and histograms are
the MC of signal (open) and RCBG (hatched).}
\label{fig:d+0mass}
\end{figure}

From 1993-98 SLD data, we select 3967 candidates which
consist of 2829  $c \rightarrow D$ signal,
281 $b \rightarrow D$, and 857 RCBG.

The charge of the primary $c$-quark is determined
by the sign of the $D^{(\ast)+}$, or  $K^-$ (in the $D^0$ case).
The direction of the primary quark is estimated from
the direction of the reconstructed $D$ meson.
Fig.~\ref{fig:qcos_ex} shows $y \equiv q \cos\theta_D$ distributions
for the selected $D$ meson sample separately for left- and right-handed
electron beams.

\begin{figure}
\epsfysize10cm
\hskip1.in
\epsfbox{qcos.eps}
\vskip -0.5cm
\caption{The distributions of the $q \cdot \cos\theta_D$ for
the selected $D$ meson sample for (a) left- and (b) right-
handed electron beams.
The solid circles are exp. data, and hatched histograms are RCBG
estimated from side-band regions.}
\label{fig:qcos_ex}
\end{figure}

To extract $A_c$, we use an unbinned maximum likelihood fit based on
the Born-level cross section for fermion production in $Z^0$-boson
decay.
The likelihood function used in this analysis is
\begin{eqnarray}
\ln{\cal L}= \sum^{n}_{i=1}
& \ln & \{
P_c^j(x_D^i) \cdot [(1-P_eA_e)(1+y_i^2)
+2(A_e-P_e)y_i \cdot A_c^D
\cdot (1-\Delta_{QCD}^c(y_i))
] \nonumber \\
 & + &
P_b^j(x_D^i) \cdot [(1-P_eA_e)(1+y_i^2)
+2(A_e-P_e)y_i\cdot A_b^D
\cdot (1-\Delta_{QCD}^b(y_i))
] \nonumber \\
 & + &
P_{RCBG}^j(x_D^i) \cdot [(1+y_i^2)
+2A_{RCBG}y_i]
\}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
$n$ is the total number of candidates,
and $A_c^D$ and $A_b^D$ are the asymmetries from $D^{\ast}$,
$D^+$, and $D^0$ mesons in $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ events,
respectively.
The index $j$ indicates each of the six charm decay modes.
For the asymmetry for the RCBG,
we take $A_{RCBG} = 0$ for the central value.
For $A_e$, we have taken
$A_e$ = 0.1512 $\pm$ 0.0043 from  the SLD measurement\cite{SLDAe}.
$P_c^j$, $P_b^j$,  and $P_{RCBG}^j$ are the probabilities
that a candidate from the $j$th decay mode
is a signal from $c\bar{c}$, $b\bar{b}$,
or RCBG.
$\Delta_{QCD}^f(y)$ is the $O(\alpha_s)$ QCD correction to the
asymmetry.
Only $A_c^D$ is treated as a free parameter, and
$A_b^D$ is taken to be fixed.

Performing the maximum likelihood fit to the data sample, we obtain
$$A_c = 0.690 \pm 0.042,$$
where the error is statistical only.
\section{ Inclusive soft-pion analysis}

In this analysis, $c$-quarks are identified using
an inclusive soft-pion.
Since the decay $D^{\ast+}\rightarrow D^0 \pi_s$ has a small
Q value of $m_{D^\ast} - m_{D^0} - m_{\pi}$ = 6 MeV$/c^2$,
the maximum transverse momentum of $\pi_s$ with respect to the
$D^{\ast}$ flight direction is only 40 MeV.

To determine the $D^{\ast}$ direction, charged tracks and neutral
clusters are clustered into jets, using an invariant-mass
algorithm
where particles are merged together in
an iterative way if their invariant mass is less than 4.6 GeV/c$^2$.
The jets which satisfy 1) at least 3 charged tracks, 2) at least
one track has a momentum of P $>$ 5 GeV/c, 3) a net charge of the
jet $\le$ 2e,
4) sum of the normalized impact parameters of the largest and
  second largest tracks $>$ 2.5 $\sigma$, and
5) there is at least one opposite-charged-tracks pair which has the
   $\chi^2$ probability of two tracks coming from the same
   vertex of greater than 1\%,
are selected as $D^{\ast}$ jets.
The transverse momentum $P_T$ to the $D^{\ast}$ jet axis
for the soft-pion tracks, which have a momentum of $1 < P < 3$ GeV/c and
an impact parameter of $< 2\sigma$, are calculated.
\begin{figure}
\epsfysize7.7cm
\hskip1.6in
\epsfbox{pt2spi.eps}
\vskip -0.5cm
\caption{The $P_T^2$ distribution for soft-pion tracks.
The solid circles indicate the exp. data. Background shape is
obtained by the function described in the text.}
\label{fig:spi_pt}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:spi_pt} shows the $P_T^2$ distribution for the soft-pion
tracks.
The background shape is determined by the function of
$F_{BG}(P_T^2) = a / (1 + bP_T^2 + c(P_T^2)^2)$.
The region of $P_T^2 < 0.01$ (GeV/c)$^2$ is regarded as a
signal region, where a signal-to-background ratio of 1:2 is observed.
From 1993-98 data, 12992 soft-pion tracks are selected
which consist of 3791 $c \rightarrow D^{\ast+}$,
500 $b \rightarrow D^{\ast+}$, and 8701 background tracks.

To extract $A_c$, we also use an unbinned maximum likelihood fit
discussed in the exclusive analysis.
We obtain
$$A_c = 0.683 \pm 0.052(stat.)$$
for the inclusive-soft-pion analysis.

\section{ Results }
Possible systematic errors have been estimated
and are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:systematic}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\newcommand{\lw}[1]{\smash{\lower2.0ex\hbox{#1}}}
\begin{tabular}{l|c c}
\hline \hline
Systematic error source & Exclusive & Inclusive\\
\hline
$f_{RCBG}$                     & 0.0111 & 0.0244 \\
Choice of BG shape             & --     & 0.0385 \\
$A_{RCBG}$                     & 0.0028 & 0.0093 \\
RCBG x distribution            & 0.0112 & 0.0018 \\
RCBG acceptance                & 0.0087 & 0.0122 \\
$f_{b \rightarrow D}/(f_{b \rightarrow D}+f_{c \rightarrow D})$
                               & 0.0011 & 0.0018 \\
$A_{b \rightarrow D}$ $(A_b)$  & 0.0033 & 0.0040 \\
$A_{b \rightarrow D}$ (Mixing) & 0.0099 & 0.0122 \\
$<x_c>$                        & 0.0003 & 0.0020 \\
$<x_b>$                        & 0.0003 & 0.0010 \\
d($x_D$) shape                 & 0.0040 & 0.0003 \\
$A_e$                          & 0.0004 & 0.0011 \\
Polarization                   & 0.0051 & 0.0047 \\
CRID Kaon ID                   & 0.0022 & --     \\
$\alpha_s$                     & 0.0004 & 0.0005 \\
Correction to QCD corr.        & 0.0018 & 0.0024 \\
2nd Order QCD corr.            & 0.0006 & 0.0008 \\
Gluon splitting                & 0.0001 & 0.0004 \\
\hline
Total   & 0.0222 & 0.0502 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Contributions to the estimated systematic error.}
\label{tab:systematic}
\end{table}
We get the preliminary results of the parity-violation parameter
$A_c$ using two kinds of $c$-quark tagging methods:
$$A_c = 0.690 \pm 0.042(stat.) \pm 0.022(sys.) \mbox{ and}$$
$$A_c = 0.683 \pm 0.052(stat.) \pm 0.050(sys.),$$
from exclusive charmed-meson reconstruction and inclusive soft-pion
analysis, respectively.
To combine them, we avoided double counting signal events from both samples.
1182 events are counted as overlap events in the analyses.
This increased the statistical error for soft-pion analysis to
0.061.

The combined result from the two analyses is
$$A_c = 0.688 \pm 0.035(stat.) \pm 0.025(sys.) \,\mbox{ (preliminary).}$$

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the personnel of the SLAC accelerator department and the
technical
staffs of our collaborating institutions for their outstanding efforts
on our behalf.

\vskip .5truecm

\vbox{\footnotesize\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\noindent
$^*$Work supported by Department of Energy
  contracts:
  DE-FG02-91ER40676 (BU),
  DE-FG03-91ER40618 (UCSB),
  DE-FG03-92ER40689 (UCSC),
  DE-FG03-93ER40788 (CSU),
  DE-FG02-91ER40672 (Colorado),
  DE-FG02-91ER40677 (Illinois),
  DE-AC03-76SF00098 (LBL),
  DE-FG02-92ER40715 (Massachusetts),
  DE-FC02-94ER40818 (MIT),
  DE-FG03-96ER40969 (Oregon),
  DE-AC03-76SF00515 (SLAC),
  DE-FG05-91ER40627 (Tennessee),
  DE-FG02-95ER40896 (Wisconsin),
  DE-FG02-92ER40704 (Yale);
  National Science Foundation grants:
  PHY-91-13428 (UCSC),
  PHY-89-21320 (Columbia),
  PHY-92-04239 (Cincinnati),
  PHY-95-10439 (Rutgers),
  PHY-88-19316 (Vanderbilt),
  PHY-92-03212 (Washington);
  The UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
  (Brunel, Oxford and RAL);
  The Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy
  (Bologna, Ferrara, Frascati, Pisa, Padova, Perugia);
  The Japan-US Cooperative Research Project on High Energy Physics
  (Nagoya, Tohoku);
  The Korea Research Foundation (Soongsil, 1997).}