\section{Introduction}

   The dielectric response, as a fundamental physical property of materials, describes how materials respond to an external electric field. In semiconductors, when the applied electric field frequency is in the range of visible light, the photon excitation of electronic inter-band transitions dominates the total dielectric response, which is described by the optical dielectric function. The optical dielectric function is strongly related to other optical properties of the material, including light absorption, refraction and non-linear optical responses. Therefore, the enhancement and tunability of the optical dielectric function of a material are significantly important in various areas, such as solar cell, optical devices and sensors. A great deal of research has been done to increase the material optical dielectric response. In particular, defects, material doping and surface plasmon induced by metallic nanoparticles have been widely used to increase the optical absorption in semiconductors~\cite{Chikamatsu04p127,Schaadt05p063106,Beck09p114310,Santra12p2508,Li09p8460}. Whereas most of the previous methods rely on the assistance of another material, the intrinsic bulk dielectric response enhancement of the light absorber is less studied.

   Alkali-metal chalcogenides such as KPSe$_6$, K$_2$P$_2$Se$_6$, LiAsSe$_2$, LiAsS$_2$ and NaAsSe$_2$ have been synthesized, and their band gaps lie in the visible light region~\cite{Bera10p3484}. Since they have spontaneous polarization, these materials are potential candidates to show the bulk photovoltaic effect~\cite{Brehm14p204704}. Moreover, strong optical second-harmonic generation susceptibility has been observed experimentally and theoretically~\cite{Bera10p3484,Song09p245203}. However, the effect of structural distortion on their linear optical responses has not been studied, and the structure-property-optical performance relationship is still unclear. In this paper, by using a first-principles method, we show that the optical dielectric constant of LiAsSe$_2$ increases threefold by volume compression. More interestingly, As and Se atoms in LiAsSe$_2$ form weakly interacting quasi-one-dimensional atomic chains, of which the dimerization strength can be tuned by volume compression. Atomic chains have attracted a great deal of interest, due to their one-dimensional nature giving rise to exotic phenomena such as conductivity~\cite{Cretu13p3487,Wang15p020508}, metal-insulator transition~\cite{LaTorre15p6636}, and topological phases~\cite{Farhan14p042201,Steinberg14p036403}. Herein, their important roles in light absorption are emphasized. As illustrated by a tight-binding model, the dimerization strength is strongly coupled to the relative phases of the gap state wavefunctions between the two neighboring chains. By reducing the wavefunction phase mismatch between the chains, the magnitude of transition intensity for the transitions near the band edges increase significantly, giving rise to substantial optical dielectric function enhancement.

   \section{Computational Details}
   Figures~\ref{structure}a and b show the experimental structure (ES) of LiAsSe$_2$~\cite{Bera10p3484}. The polar phase of LiAsSe$_2$ has the $Cc$ space group with the glide plane perpendicular to the lattice vector $\vec{b}$. The polarization induced by ionic displacement lies in the $\vec{a}$-$\vec{c}$ plane~\cite{Brehm14p204704}. As shown, the As and Se atoms form distorted quasi-one-dimensional atomic chains along the $\vec{b}$ direction. This chain and its neighboring chains form a two-dimensional chain plane (illustrated as the grey plane), and these chain planes are separated by Li-Se planes (light purple plane). In the ES, this As--Se chain dimerizes, creating alternating As--Se bonds with two different bond lengths.

   \begin{figure}[h]
    \includegraphics[width=5in]{Fig1.eps}
    \caption{a) The unit cell of LiAsSe$_2$. The lines between As and Se atoms indicate the quasi-one-dimensional chains. The chain with its neighbor chains form a chain plane (grey color plane). These parallel chain planes are separated by the Li-Se plane (light purple plane) in the middle. b) Side view of the experimental structure (ES). c) Side view of the compressed structure (CS). The differences between the ES and the CS are mainly ion motions in the $\vec{b}$ direction. As illustrated by the bond lengths between two neighboring As--Se bonds, ES shows stronger dimerization strength along the chain than CS.}\label{structure}
   \end{figure}

   The plane-wave density functional theory (DFT) package QUANTUM-ESPRESSO was used to perform structural relaxations and electronic structure calculations, with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) generalized gradient approximation exchange-correlation functional~\cite{Giannozzi09p395502}. Norm-conserving, designed non-local pseudopotentials were generated with the OPIUM package~\cite{Rappe90p1227,Ramer99p12471}. A plane-wave cutoff energy of 50 Ry was sufficient to converge the total energy with the $k$-point sampling on a 4$\times$8$\times$8 grid. The structure relaxed with the PBE functional underestimates the dimerization along the chain, and it does not match with the ES. By using the GGA + $U$ method with effective Hubbard $U_{\rm{eff}} = 7.5$ eV on the As 4 $p$ orbitals, the relaxed structure matches the ES very well. Adding $U$ on $p$ orbitals to get the correct structure is not rare, as the large self-interaction error originating from $s$ or $p$ orbitals may partially be corrected by the DFT+$U$ method~\cite{Erhart14p035204,Slipukhina11p137203}. The DFT calculated band gap is 0.8 eV, which underestimates the experimentally measured 1.1 eV~\cite{Bera10p3484}. With the converged charge density, the wavefunctions used for the dielectric function calculations are obtained from non-self-consistent calculations performed on a denser $k$-point grid with a sufficient number of empty bands. By using the long wavelength approximation and the single particle approximation, the imaginary part of the optical dielectric function is calculated as Eq.\eqref{eq:dielectric},

   \begin{flalign}\label{eq:dielectric}
      \epsilon_{2,ii}(\omega) &= \frac{\pi}{2\epsilon_0}\frac{e^2}{m^2\left(2\pi\right)^4\hbar\omega^2}\sum_{c,v}\int_{BZ} d\bv{k} \left| \bra{c,\bv{k}}p_i\ket{v,\bv{k}}\right|^2 \delta(\omega_{c,\bv{k}}-\omega_{v,\bv{k}}-\omega)
   \end{flalign}

   \noindent where $\omega$ is the light frequency; $i$ is the Cartesian coordinate; $\bv{k}$ is the Bloch wave vector; $c$, $v$ denote the conduction and valence band with energy $\hbar\omega_{c/v}$. The real part of the dielectric function, $\epsilon_1$, can be calculated from the Kramers-Kronig relation.

   \section{Results and Discussion}
    The compressed structure (CS), with much weaker dimerization strength of the atomic chains (Fig.~\ref{structure}c), is obtained by compressing all the lattice vectors by 3\%, followed by the relaxation of the internal atomic positions. This volume compression of LiAsSe$_2$ strongly enhances its optical dielectric response as shown in the calculated optical dielectric functions of the ES and CS (Fig.~\ref{dielectric_spec}a). Figures~\ref{dielectric_spec}b, c and d illustrate the calculated joint density of states (JDOS), refractive index and absorption spectrum along the $\vec{b}$ direction as a function of the photon energy for the ES and CS, respectively. As shown from the spectrum, the CS shows much higher linear optical responses near the band gap than the ES. In particular, the optical dielectric constant of the CS increases to more than three times its original value (Fig.~\ref{dielectric_spec}a). The imaginary part of the optical dielectric function, describing the real electronic inter-band transitions, also shows great enhancement under compression. As expressed in Equation~\eqref{eq:dielectric}, the imaginary part of the dielectric function is the product of JDOS $\sum_{c,v,\bv{k}}\delta (\omega_{c,\bv{k}}-\omega_{v,\bv{k}}-\omega)$ and the transition intensity $\left| \bra{c,\bv{k}}p_i\ket{v,\bv{k}}\right|^2$. However, we find that the JDOS contribution to the enhancement is negligible. As shown in Fig.~\ref{dielectric_spec}b, in the energy range $0<\hbar\omega<2$ eV where the imaginary part $\epsilon_2$ shows substantial enhancement, the calculated JDOS for the ES and CS have very similar magnitude. Therefore, this dielectric function enhancement mainly comes from the increase of transition intensity by compression.

   \begin{figure}
    \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{Fig2.eps}
    \caption{a) LiAsSe$_2$ optical dielectric ($\epsilon$) function spectrum of the ES and CS as a function of photon energy along $\vec{b}$. $\epsilon_1$ is the real part of the dielectric response spectrum, and $\epsilon_2$ is the imaginary part. b) Joint density of states for the two structures. Owing to the different band gaps of the ES and CS (0.2 eV difference), the inset graph shows the shifted-CS (shifting the spectrum by 0.2 eV) and ES JDOS spectrums in order to compare with the same band gaps. c) Refractive index ($n$) spectrum along $\vec{b}$. d) Absorption coefficient ($\alpha$) spectrum $\vec{b}$. }\label{dielectric_spec}
   \end{figure}

    To further resolve the origin of the dielectric enhancement by pressure, we present the distribution of the transition intensity as a function of $\bv{k}$ in momentum space. Figure~\ref{3d_distr} shows the transition intensity distributions in the Brillouin zone (BZ), with the transitions between the valence band maximum (VBM) to the conduction band mimimum (CBM) within the the energy range of 0--2 eV, since these transitions are dominant in the dielectric function enhancement. As displayed in Figure~\ref{3d_distr}, the $k$-resolved distributions show distinct patterns in addition to their overall differences in the corresponding dielectric constants. For the ES, most of the $\bv{k}$ points have similar yet low magnitude of transition intensities. However, for the CS, the $k$-resolved transition intensity shows significant changes, with the high magnitude $\bv{k}$ points mostly distributed on a thin plane perpendicular to the reciprocal lattice vector $\vec{k}_b$. The $\bv{k}$ points contributing the highest transition intensities are broadly located in the middle region in this plane. Along the $\vec{k}_a$ and $\vec{k}_c$ directions of this plane, the transition intensity changes slowly with respect to wavevectors, indicating the weak bonding character. This can be attributed to the weak As/Se--Se/Li inter-planar and As--Se inter-chain interactions. However, the magnitude of transition intensity shows rapid change along the $\vec{k}_b$ direction, as illustrated by the transition intensity profile along this direction (Fig.~\ref{tb_dipole}b). This strong $k$-dependent transition intensity distribution reveals the strong covalent bonds character along the chain direction. The highly inhomogeneous distribution of the transition intensity can be considered as an indication of the quasi one-dimensional nature of the system near the low-energy spectrum, steming from the dimerization changes of the As and Se atoms. Therefore, investigating the electronic structure of the chains is essential to further understand the origin of the dielectric response enhancement.

   \begin{figure}[h]
    \includegraphics[width=6in]{Fig3.eps}
    \caption{Distribution of $\left|\bra{\psi_{v,\bv{k}}} \bv{p} \ket{\psi_{c,\bv{k}}}\right|^2/V$ (eV/\AA$^3$) in the Brillouin zone (BZ) extracted from DFT calculation of LiAsSe$_2$ for a) the ES and b) CS. $V$ is the volume of the unit cell. For simplicity, the primitive BZ is illustrated as an orthogonal box with reciprocal lattice vectors $\vec{k}_a$, $\vec{k}_b$, and $\vec{k}_c$ along the three edges of the box. The transitions with transition energy less than 2 eV are plotted, as this energy region shows the greatest dielectric function enhancement. The detailed transition intensity profiles along the black lines in the figures for the ES and CS are shown in Fig.~\ref{tb_dipole}b.}\label{3d_distr}
   \end{figure}

   Figure~\ref{bands} shows the DFT band structures plotted along $\Gamma$--Y. Under compression, most bands along the $\vec{k}_b$ direction show relatively small changes, except the bands near the band edges. The CS shows strong dispersion near its optical gap at $\left(0.0, 0.42,0.0\right)$ (fractional coordinate), as its CBM shows a ``dip" while the VBM shows a ``bump". The ES has its band gap shifted towards the BZ boundary at $\left(0.0, 0.46,0.0\right)$. Comparing to those of the CS, the bands of the ES near the band gap shows much less dispersion, and the dip and bump features become less obvious. Besides the band dispersion change, the band gap shows noticeable change from 0.80 eV (ES) to 0.62 eV (CS). More importantly, we find that the inter-band transition between the band edges in the CS provides the highest transition intensity magnitude, but this corresponding value in the ES is very low. In order to understand the bonding characters of these states which give the highest transition intensity, the charge density isosurfaces of the VBM and CBM are plotted in Figure~\ref{bands}. Unexpectedly, both the ES and CS show quite similar charge density distributions, with non-bonding Se $p$ orbital character as VBMs and non-bonding As $p$ as CBMs, suggesting that the atomic orbital overlaps cannot explain such large dielectric enhancement by compression due to their similar charge densities. Rather, we find that the dimerization change induced by the compression can strongly alter the phase of wavefunctions so as to vary transition intensity magnitude significantly, as we will discuss below.

   \begin{figure}[h]
    \includegraphics[width=6in]{Fig4.eps}
    \caption{The band structure of LiAsSe$_2$ from $\Gamma$ to Y $\left(0,\pi/b,0\right)$ along $\vec{k}_b$, and the charge density isosurfaces of the conduction band minimum (CBM) and valence band maximum (VBM) states indicated by the blue squares in the band structures for a) ES and b) CS.}\label{bands}
   \end{figure}

   To demonstrate the significant influence of wavefunction phase change on the optical response enhancement, we construct a two-dimensional (2D) tight-binding (TB) model with interacting atomic chains illustrated in Figure~\ref{tb_bands}a. The TB model comprises four orbitals ($j=$1, 2, 3, 4) in a square lattice with lattice constant $a$ and periodic boundary conditions along $\vec{b}$ and $\vec{c}$ to model a chain plane in LiAsSe$_2$. Owing to the weak interaction between the chain plane and the Se--Li plane, the inter-planar interaction along the $\vec{a}$ direction is not considered. As shown in the charge density distributions (Fig.~\ref{3d_distr}), the $p$ orbitals from the As and Se atoms form $\sigma$-type covalent bonds along the chain (along the $\vec{b}$ direction). The dimerized hopping strength is denoted as $t_1 \pm \delta t_1$ to describe the alternating As--Se bond lengths. Across the chains ($\vec{c}$-direction), $\pi$-bonding between the $p$ orbitals forms, where the corresponding hopping interaction is denoted as $t_2 \pm \delta t_2$. We find that this inter-chain interaction is of crucial importance in reproducing the correct DFT band structure, although these interactions are weak relative to the intra-chain interaction, thus assuming $\left|t_2\right| < \left|t_1\right|$. The onsite energies of As and Se orbitals are set to $E_0 + \delta E$ and $E_0 - \delta E$, respectively. The onsite energies and hopping strengths of the TB Hamiltonian are tuned to reproduce the DFT band structure.

   \begin{figure}
    \includegraphics[width=5.8in]{Fig5.eps}
    \caption{a) 2D TB model for weakly interacting As--Se chains (the inset graph shows the chains in LiAsSe$_2$). The dashed lines indicate the chain-chain interaction connecting the As--Se chains (solid lines). $t\pm\delta t$ denotes the hopping strength. b) The Brillouin zone of the 2D model. The band structure (graph c) is plotted along the thick blue line. c) The band structure calculated from the 2D TB model along the chain propagation direction under different dimerization strengths ($\delta t_1/t_2$ with $t_2$ fixed).}\label{tb_bands}
   \end{figure}

   By solving the TB model numerically, we obtain the band structures in Fig.~\ref{tb_bands}c plotted along the chain propagation direction indicated by the blue line in Fig.~\ref{tb_bands}b. We also calculate the band structures by gradually reducing the dimerization strength (decreasing $\delta t_1$) with $t_2$ fixed, and find that the band gap position shifts away from the BZ boundary. More interestingly, the dispersion of the band edges are significantly enhanced when decreasing $\delta t_1$. This feature becomes clearer by calculating the $k$-resolved transition intensity using the TB wavefunctions.

   As derived in the Appendix, the transition intensity ($\mathcal{I}$) is expressed as $\mathcal{I}\left(\bv{k}\right)=\left|W^{v,c} \left( \bv{k} \right) \Pi\left(\bv{k}\right)\right|^2$, with $W^{v,c}=\sum_{j,j'}C_{j',\bv{k}}^{v \ast} C_{j,\bv{k}}^{c}$, summing over the contributions of the wavefunction coefficients to the transition intensity. In this case, $\Pi$ accounts for the contribution generated when constructing the TB basis set from the localized atomic orbitals, with its relative value only determined by the wavevector without solving the Hamiltonian. Shown in Fig.~\ref{tb_dipole} is the calculated $\mathcal{I}$ along the same $k$-path as used in the TB band structure (Fig.~\ref{tb_bands}b). By reducing the dimerization strength of the atomic chains (reducing $\delta t_1/t_2$), the transition intensities for the band edge states and nearby increase significantly, which agrees well with the DFT transition intensity trend under compression shown in Fig.~\ref{tb_dipole}b. Additionally, by plotting $W$ which is contributed only from the wavefunction as we are interested, it is clear that it shows exactly the same trend as $\mathcal{I}$, demonstrating the significant role of wavefunctions in the enhancement of the transition intensity under pressure.

   The low-energy $k\cdot p$ effective theory provides simpler and more explicit band structure and wavefunction expression. The Hamiltonian $H\left(\bv{k}\right)$ is further expanded in the vicinity  of the BZ boundary as $H(\bv{k})=H(\bv{K})+(\bv{k}-\bv{K})H'(\bv{K})$ with ${\bv{k}} = {\bv{K}} + (q, 0)$, $\bv{K} = \left(\pi/b,0\right)$. From the $k\cdot p$ Hamiltonian, the energies for the valence band ($E_{-}$) and the conduction band ($E_{+}$) near the BZ boundary are obtained as:

   \begin{flalign}
    E_{\pm}\left(q\right) &= \pm \sqrt{\delta E^2 - 2 \sqrt{4t_2^2\Omega\left(q\right)} + 4\delta t_2^2 + \Omega\left(q\right)} \\
    \Omega\left(q\right)  &= 4\delta t_1^2 + \left(q a t_1\right)^2
   \end{flalign}

   \noindent When $\left|\delta t_1\right| > \left|t_2\right|$, the band gap is at the BZ boundary ($q = 0$). By decreasing the dimerization strength such as $\left|\delta t_1\right| < \left|t_2\right|$, the band gap wavevector ($q(E_{\rm g})$) is $2\sqrt{t_2^2 - \delta t_1^2}/\left(a t_1\right)$. This change of band gap position as a function of the dimerization strength ($\delta t_1/t_2$) agrees with our DFT band structures of LiAsSe$_2$. In the ES, the strong dimerization between the As and Se atoms moves the band gap close to the BZ boundary. In the CS, the reduced dimerization due to the compression shifts the band gap away from the boundary, giving rise to the strong dispersion for the states near the gap.

   Within this low energy theory, the phase relationships of the wavefunctions are further explored by evaluating the analytical expression of wavefunctions for the band edge states. When the band gap is not at the BZ boundary ($\left|\delta t_1\right| < \left|t_2\right|$) , the wavefunctions of the gap states have simple forms:

   \begin{flalign}
    \psi_{\rm VBM} &= 1/\sqrt{2}\left(0,\expn{i\theta},1,0\right),  \\
    \psi_{\rm CBM} &= 1/\sqrt{2}\left(1,0,0,\expn{i\theta}\right)
   \end{flalign}\label{edge}

   \noindent where the wavefunctions are written with the TB basis of the four orbitals: $\chi_{{\rm As},j=1}$, $\chi_{{\rm Se},j=2}$, $\chi_{{\rm Se},j=3}$, and $\chi_{{\rm As},j=4}$ (Fig.~\ref{tb_bands}a). Due to the simple form of the wavefunctions, we use these two states to show the effect of phases of the chains. Here, $\theta = \arcsin\left(\left|\delta t_1 /t_2\right|\right)$ indicates the dimerization strength of the atomic chains. From the wavefunction expression, it is clear that the VBM and CBM are always non-bonding states without mixing of the As and Se orbitals, which is also observed in the DFT calculation. More interestingly, $\theta$ controls the phase mismatch between the wavefunctions of the two chains in the chain plane. For example, for the CBM wavefunction, when $\theta=0$, the orbitals on $\chi_{{\rm As},j=1}$ and $\chi_{{\rm As},j=4}$ are populated in the same phase, while, with nonzero $\theta \ne 0$, $\chi_{{\rm As},j=1}$ on one chain and $\chi_{{\rm As},j=4}$ on the neighboring chain have the phase difference of $\expn{i\theta}$ between the corresponding wavefunction coefficients. Hence, the application of the hydrostatic stress to LiAsSe$_2$ reduces $\theta$, enabling wavefunction phase matching between the two neighboring atomic chains, which is essential to the enhancement of dielectric responses.

   \begin{figure}[t]
    \includegraphics[width=6.22in]{Fig6.eps}
    \caption{a) Calculated transition intensities $\mathcal{I}(\bv{k})$ and $\left|W^{v,c} \left( \bv{k} \right)\right|^2$ ($W^{v,c}\left(\bv{k}\right) = \sum_{j,j'} C_{j',\bv{k}}^{v \ast} C_{j,\bv{k}}^{c}$) from 2D TB model. The $x$ axis is the wavevector along the chain direction. b)  Transition intensities (eV/\AA$^3$) extracted from DFT calculation of transition intensity for the ES and CS. They are plotted along the chain direction as indicated by the short black lines in Fig.~\ref{3d_distr}.}\label{tb_dipole}
   \end{figure}

   Using this simple form of wavefunctions, the band edge transition intensity is evaluated as $\mathcal{I}\propto\left|\expn{i\theta}+\expn{-i\theta}\right|^2=\cos^2\left(\theta\right)=1-\left(\delta t_1/t_2\right)^2$. The first exponential term $\expn{i\theta}$ originates from one chain and the other term from the neighboring chain. In this material, the finite dimerization strength of the two neighboring chains have opposite effects to their contributions to the transition intensity. Therefore, without varying the overlaps between the atomic orbitals, the phase change of the wavefunction induced by structural change alters the overall dielectric function significantly.

  \section{Conclusion}

   In summary, by using a first-principles method, we have shown that volume compression can significantly enhance the optical dielectric function and the dielectric constant by factor of three in LiAsSe$_2$. This material is essentially a network of As--Se 1D atomic chains with the dimerization strength tunable by compression. The enhancement of the transition intensity near band edges is the main reason of the overall dielectric function improvement. A 2D tight-binding model with weakly interacting atomic chains is developed to explore the relation of dimerization strength and transition intensity. When the dimerization is strong, the wavefunctions of the two neighboring chains have significant phase mismatch, providing destructive interference that reduces to the dielectric function. By reducing this wavefunction phase mismatch via compression, the collective contributions from the chains dramatically enhance the overall dielectric response and light absorption. Our results indicate that this material is suitable as the light absorber in the solar cell application. Furthermore, since the transition intensity is related to other optical processes such as second-harmonic generation and the non-linear optical effects, we expect that the volume compression can enhance their responses.

  \section{Acknowledgment}
   F.Z. was supported by the Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-07ER46431. J.A.B. was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DMR-1124696. S.M.Y. was supported by the Office of Naval Research under grant N00014-11-1-0664. Y.K. was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DMR-1120901. A.M.R. was supported by the Office of Naval Research under grant N00014-12-1-1033. The authors acknowledge computational support from the HPCMO of the DOD and the NERSC center of the DOE.
   \\


\section{To mention}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Quantum phase transitions and correlation functions in quantum spin systems have been attracted much attention due to their potential variety of quantum phenomena.
For instance, previous works have shown an emergence of magnon-based Bose-Einstein condensation near a saturation field~\cite{nikuni00,ruegg03,giamarchi99,giamarchi08,zapf14}, and spinon-based metal-insulator transitions induced by a magnetic field~\cite{oshikawa97}.
In these cases, the quantum spins behave like either a bosonic object (magnon) or a fermionic one (spinon), where the magnetic field plays a role of a chemical potential for the magnons or spinons.
In addition, the present authors have recently presented another type of spin character in a magnetic field, where the quantum spins are reconstructed into quasi-spins with an effective magnetic field~\cite{sugimoto15}.
The reconstruction reproduces a quasi-spin Hamitonian that is very similar to the original Hamitonian.
Therefore, several resemblaces appear in physical quantities with a revision of the quasi-spins as magnetic objects.

Recently, a frustarted quantum spin ladder (F-QSL) has been investigated, because it is expected to correspond to an effective spin model of the real compound BiCu$_2$PO$_6$~\cite{tsirlin10,lavarelo12,sugimoto13} and several magnetic phase transitions have been observed in the compound~\cite{sugimoto15,kohama12,casola13,kohama14,sugimoto14}.
Since some of the magnetic phase transitions cannot be understood without a frustration, an effect of the frustration should be crucial to clarify the phase transitions.
In practice, with a strong frustration, the present authors have found some magnetic phase transitions with magnetization plateaux in the same model.
In order to understand the magnetization curve of BiCu$_2$PO$_6$, it is important to examine their magnetic phases in detail one by one.
In this paper, we study a plateau of magnetization $M/M_{\mrm{sat}}=1/2$, where $M_{\mrm{sat}}$ denotes the saturated magnetization.

\section{Effective Hamiltonian in the strong rung-coupling limit}

A Hamiltonian of the F-QSL normalized by the rung-coupling $J$ in a magnetic field $h$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\mcl{H}/J=\mcl{H}_\parallel+\mcl{H}_\perp+\mcl{H}_{Z}, \label{eq:ham1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\mcl{H}_\parallel&=\lambda \sum_{i=\mrm{u,l}}\lt(\sum_{j=0}^{L-2}\bm{S}_{j,i}\cdot\bm{S}_{j+1,i} +\sum_{j=0}^{L-3}\eta\, \bm{S}_{j,i}\cdot\bm{S}_{j+2,i}\rt),\\
\mcl{H}_\perp&=\sum_{j=0}^{L-1}\bm{S}_{j,\mrm{u}}\cdot\bm{S}_{j,\mrm{l}}, \\
\mcl{H}_{Z}&= -h \sum_{j=0}^{L-1} \sum_{i=\mrm{u,l}} {S}_{j,i}^z,
\end{align}
where $\bm{S}_{j,\mrm{u(l)}}$ ($j=0,1,\cdots,L-1$) is the $S=1/2$ spin operator on the $j$ site in the upper (lower) chain and its $z$ component is $S^z_{j,\mrm{u(l)}}$.
Here, $\lambda$ denotes a nearest neighbor magnetic exchange coupling in the leg normalized by $J$, and the second-neighbor one is denoted by $\eta$, which plays a role of the geometrical frustration in the leg.
The normalized magnetic field is positively defined as $h>0$.
Below, we consider only the anti-ferromagnetic interactions, i.e., $\lambda>0$, $\eta>0$, and the strong rung-coupling limit, $\lambda \ll 1$.

\subsection{Quasi-spin transformation}
In the strong rung coupling limit $\lambda \ll 1 $ with finite magnetizations, a quasi-spin transformation and a reduced Hamiltonian are useful to understand the ground state and the low-energy physics.
In order to obtain the reduced Hamiltonian, we start with two spin Hamiltonian on a rung as follows,
\begin{equation}
\mcl{H}_{\mrm{rung}}=\bm{S}_{\mrm{u}}\cdot\bm{S}_{\mrm{l}}-h\sum_{i=\mrm{u,l}}\bm{S}_{i}=\frac{1}{2} (d_{\mrm{u}}^\dagger d_{\mrm{l}} + d_{\mrm{l}}^\dagger d_{\mrm{u}}) +\lt(n_{\mrm{u}}-\frac{1}{2} -h\rt)\lt(n_{\mrm{l}}-\frac{1}{2} -h\rt)+h^2,
\end{equation}
with a Jordan-Wigner transformation of spin operators,
\begin{equation}
d_{\mrm{u}} = S_{\mrm{u}}^- e^{- i\frac{\pi}{2}(S_{\mrm{l}}+\frac{1}{2})}, \hspc d_{\mrm{l}} = S_{\mrm{l}}^- e^{+ i\frac{\pi}{2}(S_{\mrm{u}}+\frac{1}{2})},
\end{equation}
and the number operators $n_{\mrm{u}(\mrm{l})}=d_{\mrm{u}(\mrm{l})}^\dagger d_{\mrm{u}(\mrm{l})} = S_{\mrm{u}(\mrm{l})}^z+\frac{1}{2}$.
To diagonalize this Hamiltonian, we can use a bonding and an anti-bonding operators for create and annihilate operators of Jordan-Wigner fermions, $d_{\mrm{b}} = (d_{\mrm{u}} + d_{\mrm{l}})/\sqrt{2}$, $d_{\mrm{a}} = (d_{\mrm{u}} - d_{\mrm{l}})/\sqrt{2}$.
With the number operator of the bonding and an anti-bonding Jordan-Wigner fermions $n_{\mrm{b}(\mrm{a})}$, the rung Hamiltonian is rewritten as,
\begin{equation}
\mcl{H}_{\mrm{rung}} = n_{\mrm{a}}(n_{\mrm{b}}-1)-h(n_{\mrm{a}}+n_{\mrm{b}}-1) +\frac{1}{4}.
\end{equation}
We can obtain a quasi-spin transformation with an inverse Jordan-Wigner transformation as follows,
\begin{equation}
T_{\mrm{p}}^+ = id_{\mrm{b}}^\dagger, \hspc T_{\mrm{p}}^- = -i d_{\mrm{b}}, \hspc T_{\mrm{p}}^z= n_{\mrm{b}}-\frac{1}{2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
T_{\mrm{m}}^- = d_{\mrm{a}}^\dagger e^{-i\pi n_{\mrm{b}}}, \hspc T_{\mrm{m}}^+ = d_{\mrm{a}} e^{i\pi n_{\mrm{b}}}, \hspc T_{\mrm{m}}^z = \frac{1}{2} - n_{\mrm{a}}.
\end{equation}
These operators also satisfy the spin SU(2) algebra for themselves, and commutate each other.
The quasi-spin operators rewrite the rung Hamiltonian as,
\begin{equation}
\mcl{H}_{\mrm{rung}}= -\lt(T_{\mrm{p}}^z-\frac{1}{2}\rt)\lt(T_{\mrm{m}}^z-\frac{1}{2}\rt)-h(T_{\mrm{p}}^z-T_{\mrm{m}}^z) +\frac{1}{4} = -h_{\mrm{p}} T_{\mrm{p}}^z +  h_{\mrm{m}} T_{\mrm{m}}^z,
\end{equation}
where effective quasi-magnetic fields,
\begin{equation}
h_{\mrm{p}} \equiv h -\frac{1}{2}, \hspc h_{\mrm{m}} \equiv h +\frac{1}{2} - T_{\mrm{p}}^z > h.
\end{equation}
With the quasi-spin operators, the leg Hamiltonian between $j$-th and $k$-th rungs is given by,
\begin{align}
\mcl{H}_{\mrm{leg}} = \sum_{i=\mrm{u,l}} \bm{S}_{j,i}\cdot\bm{S}_{k,i} &= \frac{1}{2} \lt(T_{j,\mrm{p}}^z-T_{j,\mrm{m}}^z\rt)\lt(T_{k,\mrm{p}}^z-T_{k,\mrm{m}}^z\rt)-\lt(T_{j,\mrm{p}}^+ T_{j,\mrm{m}}^+-T_{j,\mrm{p}}^- T_{j,\mrm{m}}^-\rt)\lt(T_{k,\mrm{p}}^+ T_{k,\mrm{m}}^+-T_{k,\mrm{p}}^- T_{k,\mrm{m}}^-\rt) \notag\\
&\htab +\frac{1}{2}\Bigg\{T_{j,\mrm{p}}^+ T_{k,\mrm{p}}^-\cos\lt[ \frac{\pi}{2}(T_{j,\mrm{m}}^z-T_{k,\mrm{m}}^z)\rt] +T_{j,\mrm{m}}^+ T_{k,\mrm{m}}^-\cos\lt[ \frac{\pi}{2}(T_{j,\mrm{p}}^z-T_{k,\mrm{p}}^z)\rt] \notag\\
&\htab\htab - T_{j,\mrm{p}}^+ T_{k,\mrm{m}}^+ \cos\lt[ \frac{\pi}{2}(T_{j,\mrm{m}}^z-T_{k,\mrm{p}}^z)\rt] -T_{j,\mrm{m}}^- T_{k,\mrm{p}}^-\cos\lt[ \frac{\pi}{2}(T_{j,\mrm{p}}^z-T_{k,\mrm{m}}^z)\rt] +\mrm{H. c.}  \Bigg\}.
\end{align}
If we consider small quasi-magnetic field for $T_{\mrm{p}}$ spin, namely $|h_{\mrm{p}}| \ll 1$, the quasi-magnetic field for $T_{\mrm{m}}$ spin is much larger than $|h_{\mrm{p}}|$, namely $|h_{\mrm{m}}|\gtrsim \frac{1}{2}\gg |h_{\mrm{p}}|$.
In order to deal low-energy physics, we can project out the high-energy states, that is, quasi-up-spins of $T_{\mrm{m}}$ opeartors.
With the projection operator given by $\mcl{P}=\prod_j \lt(T_{j,\mrm{m}}^z-\frac{1}{2}\rt)$, an effective Hamiltonian is obtained as $\mcl{P}\mcl{H}\mcl{P}=\mcl{H}_{\mrm{eff}}$.
Since the original Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham1}) is composed by a sum over the rung and leg Hamiltonians, $\mcl{H}_{\mrm{rung}}$ and $\mcl{H}_{\mrm{leg}}$, the quasi-spin transformation gives us the effective Hamiltonian as follows,
\begin{equation}
\mcl{H}_{\mrm{eff}}/J^\prime = \mcl{H}_\parallel^\prime  + \mcl{H}_Z^\prime, \label{eq:ham2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\mcl{H}_\parallel^\prime &= \lt[ \sum_{j=0}^{L-2} \lt(\bm{T}_{j}, \bm{T}_{j+1}\rt)_\Delta +\sum_{j=0}^{L-3}\eta \,\lt(\bm{T}_{j}, \bm{T}_{j+2}\rt)_\Delta \rt], \\
\mcl{H}_Z^\prime &= - h^\prime \sum_{j=0}^{L-1} T_{j}^z,
\end{align}
where $\bm{T}_{j}$ is an abbreviation of $\bm{T}_{j,\mrm{p}}$, and the effective magnetic field is obtained as $h^\prime = h-1-\frac{\lambda}{2}(1+\eta)$. Here, anisotropic exchange interactions $\lt(\bm{T}_{j}, \bm{T}_{k}\rt)_\Delta$ are defined as,
\begin{equation}
  \lt(\bm{T}_{j}, \bm{T}_{k}\rt)_\Delta \equiv \Delta T_j^zT_k^z + \frac{1}{2} (T_j^+T_k^- + T_j^-T_k^+),
\end{equation}
where the anisotropy of the quasi-spin exchange interactions is given by $\Delta=1/2$.
For the aim of calculations, we note that the explicit forms of the quasi-spin operators on $j$-th rung $\bm{T}_j$ is given by,
\begin{align}
T_{j}^\pm&=\pm\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\left[S_{j,\mrm{u}}^\pm e^{\pm i\frac{\pi}{2}\left(S_{j,\mrm{l}}^z+\frac{1}{2}\right)}+S_{j,\mrm{l}}^\pm e^{\mp i\frac{\pi}{2}\left(S_{j,\mrm{u}}^z+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\right],\label{tr1}\\
T_{j}^z&=\frac{1}{2}\left[(S_{j,\mrm{u}}^z+S_{j,\mrm{l}}^z)+S_{j,\mrm{u}}^+S_{j,\mrm{l}}^-+S_{j,\mrm{u}}^-S_{j,\mrm{l}}^+\right],\label{tr2}
\end{align}
Therefore, our problem of the frustrated spin ladder (\ref{eq:ham1}) is reduced to the anisotropic spin chain (\ref{eq:ham2}) using the transformations (\ref{tr1}) and (\ref{tr2}).
This fact makes it easier to analyze some correlation functions.

\subsection{Quasi-spin correlations}
\label{subsec:corr}
In this paper, we examine two types of correlation functions of quasi-spin operators, namely, spin-spin and dimer-dimer correlation functions.
These correlation functions will show us a phase transition between a gapless spin-liquid phase and a gapful dimer phase of the frustrated spin chain system.
Since the frustrated spin chain system is the effective Hamiltonian of the F-QSL in the strong rung-coupling limit with $M/M_{\rm sat}=$1/2, those correlation functions of quasi-spins will clarify the gapless-to-gapful phase transition of the F-QSL.

We define a correlation functions between two quasi-spin operators,
\begin{equation}
C_{\mrm{t}}^z(r_j)=\lag T_{j_L}^z T_{j_R}^z\rag,
\end{equation}
where $j_L$ ($j_R$) denotes the site-index counted from the left (right) end of the chain, and  determines the distance between two sites $r_j=1,2,\cdots,L-1$,
\begin{equation}
j_L=\frac{L}{2}-2-\mrm{int}\lt(\frac{r_j}{2}\rt), \hspc j_R=\frac{L}{2}-2+\mrm{int}\lt(\frac{r_j+1}{2}\rt),
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the number of rungs.

The dimer-dimer correlation functions of quasi-spin operators is given by,
\begin{equation}
C_{\mrm{td}}^z(r_j)=\lag D_{j_L}^z D_{j_R}^z\rag,
\end{equation}
where $D_{j}^z$ ($j=1,2,\cdots,L-2$) is a $z$ component of a quasi-spin dimer operator defined as,
\begin{equation}
D_j^z = T_{j-1}^z T_{j}^z - T_{j}^z T_{j+1}^z.
\end{equation}

Below, we use the following definition of the expectation values of the quasi-spin and quasi-dimer operators in the real space as, $E_{\mrm{t}}^z(x_j) = \lag T_{j}^z\rag$ and $E_{\mrm{td}}^z(x_j) = \lag D_{j}^z\rag.$

\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:result}
\subsection{Bound energy}
In order to obtain the critical point of the gapless-to-gapful phase transition in the strong rung-coupling limit, we calculate the bound energies at $M/M_{\mrm{sat}}=1/2$ with a fixed $\lambda=0.1$ for various frustrations by using the density-matrix renormalization-group (DMRG) method (See Fig.~\ref{fig1}).
The bound energy at $M=M_{\mrm{sat}}/2$ is defined as,
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{1/2} = (E_{M_{\mrm{sat}}/2+1}+E_{M_{\mrm{sat}}/2-1}-2E_{M_{\mrm{sat}}/2})/J,
\end{equation}
where $E_{M}$ is the lowest energy with a magnetization $M$.
If there is a magnetization plateau at $M/M_{\mrm{sat}}$, the bound energy $\varepsilon_{M/M_{\mrm{sat}}}$ corresponds to the width of the flat region in the magnetization curve.
In Fig.~\ref{fig1} (a), the bound energy with a weak frustration $\eta=0.1$ is extrapolated to zero, although a strong frustration $\eta\geq 0.4$ induces a finite bound energy in the thermodynamical limit.
We find a critical point of the gapless-to-gapful phase transition between $\eta=0.3$ and $0.4$ in Fig.~\ref{fig1} (b).
The bound energy turns to decrease as the frustration increases over $\eta\cong 0.6$, because the ground state should approach another gapless phase in decoupled quasi-spin chains in the strong frustration limit $\eta\to \infty$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Bound energy versus inverse of system size for various frustrations and (b) frustration dependence of the bound energy in the thermodynamical limit $L\to\infty $. In Fig.~(a), solid lines are determined by the least squares method.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Correlation functions}
We also calculate the expectation values and correlation functions of quasi-spin and quasi-dimer operators by using the DMRG method.
These are calculated in a 72-rung F-QSL under the open boundary condition for two values of the frustration $\eta=0.1$ and $0.6$, with a fixed $\lambda=0.1$.
Figure 2 (a) shows that real-space distributions of the expectation values of quasi-spin and quasi-dimer operators.
In this figure, we can see that the quasi-spins localize around the edges of the system and the expectation values ($E_{\mrm{t}}^z$) monotonically decrease to the center of the system for both $\eta=0.1$ and $0.6$.
On the other hand, the quasi-dimer operator has a large expectation value for $\eta=0.6$ as compared with $\eta=0.1$.
This character is also confirmed by the correlation functions in Fig.~2~(b).
We can see that the correlation functions of quasi-spin and dimer operators decay in the power law with a weak frustration $\eta=0.1$.
Thus, the $M/M_{\mrm{sat}}=1/2$ state with $\eta=0.1$ is understood as a gapless spin-liquid state of the quasi-spins, where the any correlation functions of the quasi-spins decays in the power low.
With a strong frustration $\eta=0.6$, however, the correlation function of the quasi-dimer opeartor ($C_{\mrm{td}}^z$) retains a finite value in the infinite length limit, although the correlation function of quasi-spin operator ($C_{\mrm{t}}^z$) rapidly decays.
These behaviors indicate that the Majumdar-Gosh state~\cite{majumdar69} of the quasi-spins emerges at $\eta=0.6$, where an energy gap appears between the magnetized states $M=M_{\mrm{sat}}/2$ and $M=M_{\mrm{sat}}/2\pm 1$.
In this state, there is a valence-bond solid of dimers constructed by a singlet and a triplet on neighboring rungs.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Expectation values and (b) absolute values of correlation functions of quasi-spins for $\eta=0.1$ and $0.6$, with a fixed $\lambda=0.1$ in a 72-rung F-QSL.  The magnetization of the system is fixed at $M/M_{\mrm{sat}}=1/2$, and the truncation number of DMRG calculation is set on $m=300$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary and discussions}
\label{sec:result}
We theoretically investigate the quasi-spin correlations in the 1/2 magnetized states of the frustrated quantum spin ladder with a strong rung coupling.
The effective model of these states corresponds to a frustrated spin chain with an Ising anisotropy.
With a weak frustration, the ground state has no gap, and is understood as a spin-liquid state, where the quasi-spin correlations decay in the power low.
On the other hand, a strong frustration changes the ground state into a gapful one, where the dimer-dimer correlation of the quasi-spins retains a finite value in the infinite length limit, although the quasi-spin correlation rapidly decays.
Since these behaviors correspond to those of the real spins in the frustrated spin chain, we conclude that the quasi-spins in the effective model gives a valence-bond-solid picture which helps us to understand the 1/2 magnetized states with a strong frustration.
This picture is not only useful to determine the critical points of the other gapless-to-gapful phase transition, but also will give a hint to understand the magnetization curve of the real compound BiCu$_2$PO$_6$, whose effective spin model corresponds to ours.

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec:acks}
We would like to thank M. Fujita and O. P. Sushkov for valuable discussions.
This work was partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(No.25287094, No.26108716, No.26247063, No.26103006, No.26287079, No.15K05192, and No.15H03553) from JSPS and MEXT, the HPCI Strategic Programs for Innovative Research (SPIRE) (hp140215) and the Computational Materials Science Initiative (CMSI), and by the inter-university cooperative research program of IMR Tohoku University.
Numerical computation in this work was carried out on the supercomputers at JAEA, the K computer at the RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science, and the Supercomputer Center at Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo.

\label{sec:bib}
\bibliographystyle{plain}


\section{Introduction}

The effective differential Nullstellensatz problem can be stated as follows: Given a system of algebraic partial differential equations $F=0$ where $F=f_1,\dots,f_s$, can one effectively determine if the system is consistent? In other words, is there an effective procedure to determine if 1 belongs or not to the differential ideal generated by $F$ in the ring of differential polynomials? To determine if 1 belongs to an ideal in a polynomial ring, one can use algebraic effective methods (for instance, \cite{boundsNull1, boundsNull2}). Thus, the problem reduces to finding an effective bound $B$ such that 1 is in the differential ideal generated by $F$ if and only if 1 is in the ideal generated by $F$ and its derivatives of order at most $B$.

Let us rephrase the above problem in more technical terms. Let $m, n, \ell,  D$ be positive integers. An upper bound for the effective differential Nullstellensatz is an effectively determined function $B=B(m,n,\ell,D)$ that is minimal with respect to the following property: For any differential field $(K,\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_m)$ of characteristic zero with $m$ commuting derivations, and any finite set $F\subset K\{x_1,\dots,x_{n}\}$ of differential polynomials over $K$ in $n$ differential indeterminates of order and degree bounded by $\ell$ and $D$, we have
$$1\in [F] \iff 1\in (F)^{(B)}.$$
Here, $[F]$ denotes the differential ideal generated by $F$, and $(F)^{(B)}$ the ideal generated by $F$ together with its derivatives up to order $B$.

In order to determine the bound $B$ using a differential elimination algorithm,
one needs to determine how many differentiation steps the algorithm makes. Determining this number of steps is the main difficulty of the problem. The first attempt to a solution was given by Seidenberg \cite{Seid} in 1956, where it was suggested how this bound could be obtained. In \cite[Theorem 1]{DiffNull}, using bounds on the length of \emph{Dicksonian} sequences, an explicit bound was found in terms of the Ackermann function (see Section \ref{sec:dicksonian} for the recursive definition of this function). More precisely, they proved that
\begin{equation}\label{oldbound}
B\leq A(m+8,n+\max(n,\ell,D)).
\end{equation}
Recently, in \cite[Theorem 3.4]{DiffNull2}, a better bound was found. More explicitly,
\begin{equation}\label{newbound}
B\leq (n\alpha_{T-1}D)^{2^{O\big(n^3\alpha_T^3\big)}},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_T=\binom{T+m}{m}$ and $T=T(m,n,\ell)$ is defined below.

In order to say what the value of $T=T(m,n,\ell)$ is, we need the following terminology. Consider the order $\leq$ on ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ defined as $(\tau,i)\leq (\eta,j)$ iff $i=j$ and $\tau$ is less than or equal to $\eta$ in the product order of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$. To be clear $n=\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$, and so $(\tau,i)\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ means that $\tau\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ and $0\leq i\leq n-1$. If $a\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$, we let the degree of $a$ be $\deg a=\deg\tau:=\tau_1+\dots +\tau_m$ where $a=(\tau,i)$ and $\tau=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m)$. A sequence $a_1,a_2,\dots$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ is called \emph{Dicksonian} if for all $i<j$ we have $a_i\nleq a_j$. By Dickson's lemma, every Dicksonian sequence is finite. On the other hand, an \emph{antichain} sequence is a Dicksonian sequence with the additional property that $a_i\ngeq a_j$ for $i<j$; in particular, an antichain sequence, as a set, is an antichain of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ with respect to the order $\leq$. In the case $n=1$, we simply write ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ instead of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m \times 1$, so it is clear what is meant by a Dicksonian (or antichain) sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$.

Given a function $f\colon {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$, we say that the degree growth of a sequence $a_1,a_2,\dots$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ is bounded by $f$ if $\deg a_i\leq f(i)$ for all $i$. Let $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$ be the maximal length of an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ with degree growth bounded by $f$. We then have
$$T(m,n,\ell) =  2^{\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n+1}\ell, \quad \text{ where } f(i)=2^i\ell.$$

The number $T$ first appeared in~\cite[Theorems 4.3 and 4.10]{Pierce} and is related to the axiomatization of the class of differentially closed fields with several commuting derivations (in arbitrary characteristic). Theorem 4.10 of \cite{Pierce} is one of the main tools used to prove the upper bound (\ref{newbound}). However, \cite{Pierce} only dealt with the existence of such a number, and no algorithm to compute it was considered. It is worth mentioning at this point that, in \cite{effectivebounds}, the number $T$ together with \cite[Theorem 4.10]{Pierce}  have also been used to compute Bezout-type estimates for systems of algebraic partial differential equations. There, \cite[\S3]{effectivebounds}, an algorithm to compute $T$ was presented for $m=1,2$.

The goal of this paper is to build an effective algorithm to determine the value of $T$ (we also prove an upper bound in closed form in terms of the Ackermann function, see Example \ref{ex:app1}). In Section~\ref{sec:dicksonian}, we obtain explicit upper bounds for lengths of Dicksonian sequences whose degree growth is bounded by a given function $f$. The proofs of our bounds for Dicksonian sequences are based on the ideas of \cite[Lemma~8]{DiffNull}. However, the proof of the latter contains an error in the way it refers to \cite[Proposition 1.1]{Moreno1}. Here, we correct this error and improve the statements. In Section~\ref{sec:antichains},  upper bounds for the length of antichain sequences are obtained. Furthermore, we provide an explicit recursive algorithm which computes the exact value of the maximal length of antichain sequences; more precisely, of~$\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$. Note that our results provide explicit bounds for any number $m$ of derivations, while currently explicit bounds are only known for $m=1,2$. Due to the discussion above, having these explicit bounds is crucial for the effective differential Nullstellensatz (\ref{newbound}) (and for Bezout-type estimates of algebraic PDE's). Of course, it is still desirable to determine how sharp the bound in (\ref{newbound}) is, or how much it can be improved. These are interesting and difficult questions, which we leave for future research,

The type of bounds discussed in this paper have been studied in combinatorics using general versions of Dickson's lemma. Their existence, together with constructive recursive algorithms, appear in \cite{Fig,McA,Moreno,Pierce,Seid}. For instance, in \cite{Moreno}, it is shown that the maximal possible length of Dicksonian sequences (and antichains) is primitive recursive in the bounding function and recursive, but not primitive recursive (if the function increases at least linearly), in $m$. The motivation of our statements is the need to find explicit expressions of such bounds to make them more applicable to designing efficient algorithms, and thus to have a better understanding of the complexity of the differential effective Nullstellensatz (and, consequently, of differential elimination).

\section{Bounds for Dicksonian sequences}\label{sec:dicksonian}
This section contains explicit upper bounds for lengths of Dicksonian sequences with \emph{growth rate} bounded by a given function. We provide several versions of the bounds so that more cases are covered. We start by introducing some terminology.
Let
$$\tau_1 = \left(\tau_1^1,\ldots,\tau_m^1\right),\ldots
,\tau_k = \left(\tau_1^k,\ldots,\tau_m^k\right)
$$
be a  sequence of $m$-tuples of nonnegative integers and $
f: {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0} \to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$
be an arbitrary  function.
\begin{definition}  We say that the {\it max growth} of this sequence is {\it bounded by the function $f$} if, for all $i$, $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{equation*}\label{ineq1}
\max\big\{\tau_1^i,\ldots,\tau_m^i\big\}\leq f(i).
\end{equation*}
We also say that the {\it degree growth} of this sequence is {\it bounded by the function $f$} if, for all $i$, $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{equation*}\label{ineq11}
\deg \tau_i := \tau_1^i+\ldots+\tau_m^i\leq f(i).
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark} The sequences with bounded max growth are used in the bounds for the effective differential Nullstellensatz found in \cite{DiffNull}, see (\ref{oldbound}); while sequences with bounded degree growth are used for the improved bounds found in \cite{DiffNull2}, see (\ref{newbound}).
\end{remark}
The Ackermann function, which is used in our bound estimates, is defined as follows (see \cite[\S2]{Moreno1}, for instance):
$$
A(m,n) =
\begin{cases}
   A(0,n)=n+1& n \geq 0,\\
   A(m+1,0)=A(m,1)& m\geq 0,\\
   A(m+1,n+1)=A(m,A(m+1,n))& m,n\geq 0.
  \end{cases}
$$

\begin{proposition}\cite[Proposition 1.1]{Moreno} \label{p1}
   For all $m,h,k\geq 1$, if $\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_k$ is a Dicksonian sequence of $m$-tuples, such
   that $$\deg \tau_i=h+i-1,\quad 1\leq i\leq k,$$
   then $$k \leq A(m,h-1)-h,$$
   and there exists such a Dicksonian sequence for which this bound is reached.
\end{proposition}

We will use the following notation:
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $L_{f,m}$ denote the maximal length of a Dicksonian sequence of $m$-tuples with max growth
is bounded by $f$.
\item Let  $l_{f,m}$  denote the maximal length of a Dicksonian sequence of $m$-tuples with degree growth is bounded by $f$.
\item For an increasing function $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$, let $\lceil f^{-1}(x)\rceil$ be the least number $k$
such that $f(k)\geq x$.
\end{itemize}

Under certain assumptions on the growth of the function $f$, the following lemmas yield upper bounds for $L_{f,m}$ and $l_{f,m}$ in closed form in terms of the Ackermann function. The idea of the proofs is that if the function $f$ does not grow ``too fast'', one can reduce the problem to the one treated in Proposition~\ref{p1}. This kind of statements has already been considered in \cite[Lemma~8]{DiffNull}; however, the proof of that lemma contains an error in the way it refers to \cite[Proposition 1.1]{Moreno}. Our lemmas below can be considered as a correction and/or improvement of that lemma. The general case (arbitrary function $f$) has been considered in \cite{Moreno1}; an algorithm to compute the value of $l_{f,m}$ is provided there. However, in general, a closed form of this bound is not available. Also, \cite[Theorem~10]{Seid} can be viewed as being more general than Lemma~\ref{lexbound}, but, again, the bounds  are not given explicitly there. Our results below are justified by the convenience of having explicit expressions of the bounds; moreover, such expressions will be used in Section~\ref{subsec:dicksonian}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lexbound} For every increasing function $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0} \to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ and $d\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ such that $$d\cdot f(i+1)\geq (m+d)f(i),\quad i>0,$$
if $$(m+d)f(i+1)\leq A(d,d\cdot f(i)-1),\quad i>0,$$ then
\begin{align}\label{ineq2}
L_{f,m} < \big\lceil f^{-1}\big(A(m+d,(d+m)f(1)-1)/d\big)\big\rceil
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\begin{align}\label{seq11}
\tau_1 = \left(\tau_1^1,\ldots,\tau_m^1\right),\ldots,\;
\tau_k = \big(\tau_1^k,\ldots,\tau_m^k\big)
\end{align}
be a Dicksonian sequence whose max growth is bounded by $f$. We now construct, from \eqref{seq11}, a new sequence satisfying the conditions of
Proposition~\ref{p1}. We will use the fact that $\deg \tau_i > 0$ for $1\leq i < k$.
Append to the first tuple $d$ new coordinates, each equal to $f(1)$,
obtaining the following $(m+d)$-tuple:
$$\left(\tau_1^1,\ldots,\tau_m^1,f(1),\ldots,f(1)\right),$$
whose degree is $$\deg \tau_1+ d\cdot f(1)\leq (m+d)f(1).$$
Let $\alpha_1:=\deg\tau_2+d\cdot f(2)-\deg\tau_1-d\cdot f(1)-1$. Note that
$$0\leq \alpha\leq (m+d)f(2)-d\cdot f(1)-1.$$
Now, add $\alpha$ many new $(m+d)$-tuples as follows: The first $m$ coordinates of these tuples are
$(\tau_1^1,\ldots,\tau_m^1)$, and the last $d$ coordinates form a Dicksonian
sequence of $d$-tuples, starting with $(f(1),\ldots,f(1))$, with the
degree growing exactly by 1 at each step.
From Proposition~\ref{p1} and the condition
$$(m+d)f(2)-d\cdot f(1)\leq A(d,d\cdot f(1)-1)-d\cdot f(1),$$ such a sequence exists. The last tuple will
have degree equal to $$\deg\tau_2+d\cdot f(2)-1.$$
Next, add the tuple
$$\left(\tau_1^2,\ldots,\tau_m^2,f(2),\ldots,f(2)\right).$$
Continue by adding new $(m+d)$-tuples, whose
first $m$ coordinates are $(\tau_1^i,\ldots,\tau_m^i)$ and last
$d$ coordinates form a Dicksonian sequence with the degree growing by 1 at
each step.
When the tuple
$$\big(\tau_1^{k-1},\ldots,\tau_m^{k-1},f(k-1),\ldots,f(k-1)\big)$$
is reached, consider two cases: (1) if $\deg \tau_k+d\cdot f(k)=\deg \tau_{k-1}+d\cdot f(k-1)$ then stop this construction; (2) otherwise, repeat the construction one more time and stop at $\big(\tau_1^{k},\ldots,\tau_m^{k},f(k),\ldots,f(k)\big)$.
In both cases, we obtain a sequence of $(m+d)$-tuples in which the
degree grows by 1 at each step. We will show
that this sequence is Dicksonian.
Suppose that it is not.
Let $\tau_j$, $\tau_l$, $j<l$, be two $(m+d)$-tuples from this sequence
for which there exists an $(m+d)$-tuple $\tau$ of nonnegative integers such that $$\tau_l=\tau_j+\tau.$$
For an $(m+d)$-tuple $\gamma$, let
 $\gamma'$ and $\gamma''$ denote the first $m$
coordinates and the last $d$ coordinates of it,
respectively. Then we have $$\tau_l'=\tau_j'+\tau'\quad \text{and}\quad
\tau_l''=\tau_j''+\tau''.$$
If $\tau_j$ and $\tau_l$ have been added after the same tuple
of the form $$p_i=\left(\tau_1^i,\ldots,\tau_m^i,f(i),\ldots,f(i)\right),$$
or if $\tau_j$ coincides with such a tuple $p_i$ and $\tau_l$ has been
added after $p_i$,
the equality $$\tau_l''=\tau_j''+\tau''$$ contradicts the fact that the
last $d$ coordinates of the tuples between $p_i$ and $p_{i+1}$,
including $p_i$ and excluding $p_{i+1}$, form a Dicksonian sequence.
If $\tau_j$ and $\tau_l$ have been added after {\it different} tuples
$p_i$ and $p_{i'}$, the equality
$$\tau_l'=\tau_j'+\tau'$$  contradicts the fact that sequence
\eqref{seq11} is Dicksonian.
Therefore, our assumption was false and the constructed sequence
is Dicksonian.

By Proposition~\ref{p1}, the degree
of its last element does not exceed $$A(m+d,\deg\bar a_1+d\cdot f(1)-1)-1< A(m+d, (m+d)f(1)-1),$$ and, moreover, this degree equals $\deg\tau_k+d\cdot f(k)$. Hence,
$$d\cdot f(k)< A(m+d,(d+m)f(1)-1),$$
and
$$k<\big\lceil f^{-1}\big(A(m+d,(d+m)f(1)-1)/d\big)\big\rceil.\qedhere$$
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lexbound2} For every increasing function $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0} \to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ and $d\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ such that $$f(i+1)\geq (m+1)f(i),\quad i>0,$$
if $$(m+1)f(i+1)\leq A(d,f(i)-1),\quad i>0,$$ then
\begin{align}\label{ineq22}
L_{f,m} < \big\lceil f^{-1}\big(A(m+d,(m+1)f(1)-1)\big)\big\rceil
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows as in Lemma~\ref{lexbound} where the appended $d$-tuples begin with the form
$$(\tau_1^i,\dots,\tau_m^i,f(i),0,\ldots,0). \qedhere$$
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[cf. Proposition~\ref{antiprop}]\label{lexbound3} For every increasing function $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0} \to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ and $a,d\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ such that $$a\cdot f(i+1)\geq (a+1)f(i),\quad i>0,$$
if $$(a+1)f(i+1)\leq A(d,a\cdot f(i)-1),\quad i>0,$$ then
\begin{align}\label{ineq23}
l_{f,m} < \big\lceil f^{-1}\big(A(m+d,(a+1)f(1)-1)/a\big)\big\rceil
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows as in Lemma~\ref{lexbound} where the appended $d$-tuples begin with the form
$$(\tau_1^i,\dots,\tau_m^i,a\cdot f(i),0,\ldots,0). \qedhere$$
\end{proof}

\begin{example}\label{ex:bounds}
Let $d=2$, $b>1$, and $\ell>0$. Also, let $f(i)=b^i\ell$. Consider the following question: For which values of $b$ is there $a\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ satisfying the hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{lexbound3}? We first have the inequality
$$ab^{i+1}\ell\geq (a+1) b^i\ell,$$
which is the same as $ab\geq a+1$. We also have
$$(a+1)b^{i+1}\leq A(2,ab^i-1)=2ab^i+1,\quad \text{ for all } i\geq 0.$$
This is equivalent to $(a+1)b\leq 2a$. From this inequality, we see that
$$b\leq \frac{2a}{a+1} < 2.$$
Moreover, from the above inequalities, we see that for any $1<b<2$, if $a\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ is such that
$$a\geq \frac{1}{b-1} \quad \text{ and }\quad a\geq\frac{b}{2-b},$$
then the hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{lexbound3} are satisfied. Thus, for such values of $a$ and $b$, we have
$$l_{f,m}< \big\lceil \log_{b}(A(m+2,(a+1)b\ell-1)/a\ell)\big\rceil.$$
In particular, if $b=3/2$ and $\ell=2/3$, we can choose $a=3$. In case $m=2$, we get
$$l_{f,2}<\big\lceil \log_{\frac{3}{2}}(A(4,3)/2)\big\rceil=\big\lceil\log_{\frac{3}{2}}((2^{2^{65536}}-3)/2)\big\rceil.$$
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
In the previous example we saw that $1<b<2$. Thus, Lemma~\ref{lexbound3} can only deal with the case $f(i)=2^i\ell$ when $d\geq 3$ (see Example~\ref{ex:app1}). As we saw in the introduction, the increasing function $f(i)=2^i\ell$ plays an important role in the applications of our bounds to the effective differential Nullstellensatz, and so better bounds are desirable. We deal with these issues in the next section.
\end{remark}

\section{Bounds for antichains}\label{sec:antichains}

In this section, we establish explicit bounds for lengths of antichain sequences of tuples of nonnegative integers, which can be used for computations of the bound (\ref{newbound}) obtained in \cite[Theorem 3.4]{DiffNull2} (see Example~\ref{ex:app}). Clearly, every such sequence is a Dicksonian sequence, and so the bounds obtained in the previous section can be applied; however, the goal of this section is to show that in general the maximal length of an antichain sequence is much smaller, and so better bounds can be obtained for the differential Nullstellensatz computations.

Let us recall some of the notation used in the introduction. Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers\footnote{In this section, we consider $m$-tuples and $n$ copies of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$.}. Consider the order $\leq$ on ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ defined as $(\tau,i)\leq (\eta,j)$ iff $i=j$ and $\tau$ is less than or equal to $\eta$ in the product order of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$. Recall that an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\times n$ is a sequence $a_1,\dots,a_k$ such that for all $i\neq j$ we have that $a_i\nleq a_j$. If $a\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$, we let the degree of $a$ be $\deg a=\deg\tau$ where $a=(\tau,i)$.

Given $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$, we let $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$ be the maximal length of an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ with degree growth bounded by $f$. In the following sections we find an upper bound of $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$ in terms of the Ackermann function and, more importantly, we find a recursive algorithm which yields its exact value. Recall that, for a nonnegative integer $\ell$, the number $T=T(m,n,\ell)$ that appears in the bound (\ref{newbound}) is given by
$$T=  2^{\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n+1}\ell, \quad \text{ where } f(i)=2^i\ell.$$

\subsection{Using Dicksonian sequences}\label{subsec:dicksonian}
Using the results of Section \ref{sec:dicksonian}, we provide an upper bound for $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$ (for a certain family of functions) in terms of the Ackermann function.

\begin{proposition}\label{antiprop}
Let $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ be an increasing function such that $f(i+1)\geq 2f(i)$. If $d\in{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ is such that
$$2f(i+1)\leq A(d,f(i)-1),$$
then
\begin{equation}\label{anb1}
\mathfrak L_{f,m}^{1}< \big\lceil f^{-1}(A(m+d,2f(1)-1))\big\rceil.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $d\geq 3$, then, for $n>1$,
\begin{equation}\label{anb2}
\mathfrak L_{f,m}^{n}< \big\lceil f^{-1}(A(m+d+2,2f(1) n-1)/n)\big\rceil.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Inequality \eqref{anb1} follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lexbound3} taking $a=1$ and noting that $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^1\leq l_{f,m}$. For \eqref{anb2}, assume $n>1$. We can embed ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ into ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^{m+2}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{emb}
(\xi,i)\mapsto (\xi,\, i,\, n-1-i).
\end{equation}
Note that, given an increasing function $f:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ and a sequence $(a_1,\ldots,a_k)$ of elements in ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$, if $\deg a_i \leq f(i)$, then
$$\deg a_i+n-1\leq f(i) + n-1\leq F(i):= f(i)\cdot n.$$
Since $d\geq 3$,  we have
$$
2F(i+1)=2nf(i+1)\le nA(d,f(i)-1)\le A(d,F(i)-1).
$$
Thus, we get that $$F(\mathfrak L_{F,m+2}^1)<A(m+d+2,2F(1)-1),$$ and so
$$\mathfrak L_{F,m+2}^1< \big\lceil f^{-1}(A(m+d+2,2f(1) n-1)/n)\big\rceil.$$
Furthermore, any antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ whose degree growth is bounded by $f$ yields, by means of the embedding \eqref{emb}, an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^{m+2}$ whose degree growth is bounded by $F$. Therefore, $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n\leq \mathfrak L_{F,m+2}^1$, and the result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}\label{ex:app1}
In our case of interest for the applications to the effective differential Nullstellensatz, we have $f(i)=2^i\ell$ and, in this case, we write $\mathfrak L_{\ell,m}^n$ instead of $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$. In this case, we see that $f(i+1)\geq 2f(i)$ and, if we let $d=3$, we see that
$$2f(i+1)\leq 2^{f(i)+2}-3=A(3,f(i)-1).$$
Thus, we can apply Proposition \ref{antiprop} to get that
$$2^{\mathfrak L_{\ell,m}^{1}}\ell < A(m+3, 4\ell-1),$$
and, if $n>1$, then
$$2^{\mathfrak L_{\ell,m}^{n}}\ell < A(m+5, 4n\ell-1)/n.$$
We conclude that the value of $T$ in (\ref{newbound}) satisfies
$$T < 2\, A(m+3,4\ell-1) \text{ when }n=1$$
and
$$T<\frac{2}{n}A(m+5,4n\ell-1) \text{ when }n>1.$$
\end{example}

\subsection{Sequence giving the exact bound}
We now provide a recursive algorithm that yields the exact value of $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$. The techniques we use are motivated by the arguments for Dicksonian sequences from \cite[\S4]{Moreno1}.

Clearly, $\mathfrak L_{f,1}^n=n$. For $m=2$, we have (see   \cite[Lemma~3.8]{effectivebounds})
\begin{equation}\label{eq22}
\mathfrak L_{f,2}^n=b_n,\quad \text{where } b_0:=0 \text{ and } b_{i+1}:=f(b_i+1)+b_i+1,\ i\ge 0.
\end{equation}
However, for $m>2$, the arguments in \cite[Section~3]{effectivebounds} do not yield the value of $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$.

For the rest of this section we assume that
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(\dag)] the bound function $f$ is increasing.
\end{enumerate}

\begin{remark}
If $f$ grows at least linearly, Proposition \ref{p1} yields a Dicksonian sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ of length $A(m,0)-1$ such that the degree grows (by one) at each step. Hence, this Dicksonian sequence is in fact an antichain sequence with degree growth bounded by $f$, and so
$$A(m,0)-1\leq \mathfrak L_{f,m}^{n}.$$
\end{remark}

Let us now recall the notions of compressed sets and binomial representations (see \cite[\S1]{Moreno1} for more details). Consider the degree-lexicographic order in ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$, $\tau\prec \eta$ iff $\deg \tau < \deg \eta$ or $\deg \tau= \deg \eta$ and $\tau$ is less than $\eta$ in the lexicographic order of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$. A subset $M$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ is said to be \emph{compressed} if whenever $\tau, \eta \in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ and $\deg \tau=\deg \eta$ we have
$$\left( \tau \in M \text{ and } \tau\prec \eta\right) \,\implies \,  \eta\in M.$$
For $\gamma>0$, $k<\gamma$, and $a_0\geq a_1\geq \cdots\geq a_k\geq 0$ we define
$$\langle a_0,\dots,a_k\rangle _\gamma=\binom{a_0+\gamma}{\gamma}+\cdots +\binom{a_k+\gamma-k}{\gamma-k}.$$
For each $\gamma>0$, the map $(a_0,\dots,a_k)\mapsto \langle a_0,\dots,a_k\rangle_\gamma$ is an order-preserving bijection between decreasing sequences of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ of length at most $\gamma$ (with the lexicographic order) and the positive integers (with the usual order). Thus, for every positive integer the inverse of this map yields a unique decreasing sequence which we call its \emph{$\gamma$-binomial representation}. For every positive integer $a$, we define
$$a^{\langle \gamma\rangle}=\langle a_0,\dots,a_k\rangle_{\gamma+1},$$
where $(a_0,\dots,a_k)$ is the $\gamma$-binomial representation of $a$. We set $0^{\langle\gamma\rangle}=0$. We have the following, if $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2$ are nonnegative integers such that $b_1\geq a_1,a_2$,
\begin{equation}\label{bineq1}
a_1+a_2\leq b_1+b_2 \; \implies \; a_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle} + a_2^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq b_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle} + b_2^{\langle\gamma\rangle}.
\end{equation}

We now consider the analogue of the Hilbert-Samuel function for ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$. Given a sequence $\tau=(\tau_1\dots,\tau_k)$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$, for each $i=0,1,\dots,k$ we let $H_{\tau}^i:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ be
$$H_{\tau}^i(d)=\big|\{\xi\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m : \deg \xi=d \text{ and } \xi\ngeq \tau_1,\dots, \tau_i\}\big|.$$
Recall that $\xi\ngeq \tau_j$ means that $\xi-\tau_j$ has at least one negative entry. Now, Macaulay's theorem on the Hilbert-Samuel function (cf. \cite[\S1]{Moreno1}) states that
\begin{equation}\label{Mac1}
H_\tau^{i}(d+1)\leq H_\tau^{i}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}, \, \text{ for all } i=0,1,\dots,k \text{ and } d\geq 1.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if for some $i\leq k$ the sequence $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_i)$ is compressed and $\deg \tau_j\leq d$ for all $j\leq i$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Mac2}
H_\tau^{i}(d+1)=H_\tau^{i}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}.
\end{equation}

Let us now construct an algorithm that yields the values of $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$. We first consider the case $n=1$. Our strategy is to build an appropriate antichain sequence and show that it has maximal length. The algorithm to compute its length will follow from the construction of such a sequence. We construct an antichain sequence as follows:
$$\mu_1=\max_{\prec}\{\xi\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m : \deg \xi=f(1) \},$$
and, as long as it is possible, choose
\begin{equation}\label{rec0}
\mu_{i}=\max_{\prec}\{ \xi\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m : \deg \xi=f(i) \text{ and } \xi \ngeq \mu_1,\dots,\mu_{i-1} \}.
\end{equation}
Since $f$ is increasing, $\bar \mu:=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_L)$ is indeed an antichain sequence, and $f$ bounds its degree growth (in fact, $\deg \mu_i=f(i)$). We will show that $L=\mathfrak L_{f,m}^1$. It is worth mentioning at this point that in \cite[\S4]{Moreno1} the value of $L$ is denoted by $\Omega(m,f)$ and is called the \emph{frontier} of $f$ in ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$.

Let us give a more explicit construction of $\bar \mu$. By the definition of $\prec$, the first element of $\bar \mu$ is
$$\mu_1=(f(1),0,\dots,0),$$
if $f(1)>0$ (which we might as well assume), the second element is
$$\mu_2=(f(1)-1, f(2)-f(1)+1,0,\dots,0),$$
the third element is
$$\mu_3=(f(1)-1,f(2)-f(1),f(3)-f(2)+1,0,\dots,0),$$
and so on. The penultimate element is
$$\mu_{L-1}=(0,\dots,0,1,f(L-1)-1),$$
and the last element is
$$\mu_L=(0,\dots,0,f(L)).$$
More generally, a recursive construction of the sequence $\bar \mu$ is given as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] if $\mu_{i-1}=(u_1,\dots, u_r,0,\dots,0,u_m)$ with $r<m-1$ and $u_r>0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{rec1}
\mu_i=(u_1,\dots,u_r-1,f(i)-f(i-1)+u_m+1,0,\dots,0)
\end{equation}
\item [(ii)] if $\mu_{i-1}=(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1},u_m)$ with $u_{m-1}>0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{rec2}
\mu_i=(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1}-1,f(i)-f(i-1)+u_m+1).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}

 \begin{remark}\label{onH}
From the recursive construction of $\bar \mu$, one sees that, for each $i\leq L$, the sequence $(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_i)$ is compressed and that $H_{\bar \mu}^L(\deg \mu_L)=0$.
\end{remark}

We now aim to show that $L=\mathfrak L_{f,m}^1$. Let $\tau=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_\nu)$ be an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ with degree growth bounded by $f$. Suppose $\nu\geq L$, we must show that then $\nu\leq L$. The first step is to replace $\tau$ with a more adequate antichain sequence of the same length.

\begin{lemma}\label{reord}
There is an antichain sequence $\eta=(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_\nu)$ with degree growth bounded by $f$, such that $\deg \eta_i\leq \deg \eta_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\dots,\nu$. In fact, one such a sequence can be obtained by reordering $\tau$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}
The above lemma does not hold for Dicksonian sequences. This is an important difference between Dicksonian and antichain sequences.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}
Let $\eta_1=\min_{\prec}\{\tau_1,\dots,\tau_\nu\}$ and $\eta_{i}=\min_{\prec}\{(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_\nu)\setminus (\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{i-1})\}$ for $i=2,\dots,\nu$. Clearly, $\eta=(\eta_1,\dots,\eta_\nu)$ is an antichain sequence (as $\tau$ is). Also, by construction, $$\deg \eta_i\leq \deg \eta_{i+1}.$$ Thus, all that is left to show is that $f$ bounds the degree of $\eta$. To see this, note that, by the definition of $\eta_i$, there must be $1\leq j\leq i$ such that $\deg \eta_i\leq \deg \tau_j$. But since $f$ is assumed to be increasing and it bounds the degree growth of $\tau$, we get $$\deg \eta_i\leq f(j)\leq f(i),$$ as desired.
\end{proof}

Now, let
$$g(i)=\left\{\begin{array}{lc} \deg \eta_i\, , & \text{for } i\leq \nu \\ \deg \eta_\nu\, , & \text{for } i>\nu \end{array}\right.$$
Clearly, $g$ is an increasing function such that $g(i)\leq f(i)$. Let $\zeta=(\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_M)$ be the antichain sequence with degree growth bounded by $g$ constructed as in \eqref{rec0}.

\begin{lemma}
With $\bar \mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_L)$ and $\zeta=(\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_M)$ as above, we have~$M\leq~L$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the construction of $\bar \mu$ (see \eqref{rec1} and \eqref{rec2}), we have that if $(u_1,\dots,u_m)\in \bar\mu$ and $0\leq v_1\leq u_1,\dots,0\leq v_{m-1}\leq u_{m-1}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sharp}
 \text{ there exists }v_m\geq u_m \text{ such that } (v_1,\dots,v_m)\in\bar\mu.
 \end{equation}
We now prove

\noindent \underline{Claim.} For every $(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1},u_m)\in\zeta$, there is $(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1},v_m)\in \bar \mu$ with $v_m\geq u_m$.

\noindent {\it Proof of Claim.} We proceed by induction on $i=1,\dots,M$. The first element of $\zeta$ is $(g(1),0\dots,0)$, but the first element of $\bar \mu$ is $(f(1),0\dots,0)$ and $g(1)\leq f(1)$, thus, by~\eqref{eq:sharp}, we can find the desired tuple in $\bar \mu$. Now suppose $$\zeta_{i-1}=(u_1,\dots,u_r,0,\dots,0,u_m),\quad r<m-1,\ u_r>0.$$ By induction, there is $v_m\geq u_m$ such that $(u_1,\dots,u_r,0,\dots,0,v_m)\in\bar \mu$. By \eqref{rec1}, $\zeta_i$ is of the form $$(u_1,\dots,u_r -1,\alpha,0,\dots,0), \quad \alpha:=g(i)-u_1-\cdots -u_r+1.$$ Also, by \eqref{rec1}, $$(u_1,\dots,u_r-1,\beta,0\dots,0)\in\bar\mu,\quad \beta:=f(i)-u_1-\cdots - u_r+1.$$ Since $g(i)\leq f(i)$, we have that $\alpha\leq \beta$, and so, by~\eqref{eq:sharp}, we can find the desired tuple in $\bar \mu$. Finally, suppose $$\zeta_{i-1}=(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1},u_m),\quad u_{m-1}>0.$$ By induction, there is $v_m\geq u_m$ such that $(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1},v_m)\in\bar \mu$. By \eqref{rec2}, $\zeta_i$ is of the form $$(u_1,\dots,u_{m-
1}-1,\alpha'),\quad\alpha':=g(i)-u_1-\cdots - u_{m-1}+1.$$ Also, by \eqref{rec2}, $$(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1}-1,\beta')\in\bar\mu,\quad \beta'=f(i)-u_1-\cdots - u_{m-1}+1.$$ Again, since $g(i)\leq f(i)$, we have $\alpha'\leq \beta'$, and so, once again, by $(\eqref{eq:sharp})$ we can find the desired tuple in $\bar\mu$.
This proves the claim.

The claim implies that every element of $\zeta$ will be accounted for in $\bar \mu$, and so $M\leq L$.
\end{proof}

By the above lemma, $M\leq L\leq \nu$. Thus, it suffices to show that $\nu\leq M$. Note that $\deg \zeta_i=\deg \eta_i$ for all $i\leq M$. We now establish how $H_{\eta}^i$ is related to $H_{\zeta}^i$.

\begin{proposition}\label{ontheH}
For each $i=0,1,\dots,M$ and $d\geq 0$, we have $H_{\eta}^i(d)\leq H_{\zeta}^i(d)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $i$. For the base case $i=0$, we have
$$H_{\eta}^0(d)=\binom{m-1+d}{d}=H_\zeta^0 (d),$$
which is the number of $m$-tuples of degree $d$. We now proceed with the induction step $i+1$. We have that for $d<g(i+1)=\deg \eta_{i+1}=\deg \zeta_{i+1}$,
$$H_\eta^{i+1}(d)=H_\eta^{i}(d)\leq H_\zeta^i(d)=H_\zeta^{i+1}(d).$$
For $d=g(i+1)$, we have
$$H_\eta^{i+1}(d)=H_\eta^i(d)-1\leq H_\zeta^i(d)-1=H_\zeta^{i+1}(d).$$
Now let $d\geq g(i+1)$. For this case we follow the strategy of the last part of the proof  of \cite[Proposition 4.3]{Moreno1}. By Macaulay's theorem on the Hilbert-Samuel function (see \eqref{Mac1}),
\begin{equation}\label{use1}
H_\eta^{i+1}(d+1)\leq H_\eta^{i+1}(d)^{\langle d\rangle},
\end{equation}
As we pointed out in Remark~\ref{onH}, the sequence $(\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_i)$  is compressed for all $i$, and so the theorem of Macaulay also yields (see \eqref{Mac2})
\begin{equation}\label{use2}
H_\zeta^{i+1}(d+1)=H_\zeta^{i+1}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}.
\end{equation}
It then follows, by induction on $d\geq g(i+1)$ and the fact that if $a\leq b$ then $a^{\langle d\rangle}\leq b^{\langle d\rangle}$ (which follows from \eqref{bineq1}), that
\begin{equation}\label{use3}
H_\eta^{i+1}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}\leq H_\zeta^{i+1}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}.
\end{equation}
Thus, putting \eqref{use1}, \eqref{use2}, and \eqref{use3} together, we get
$$H_\eta^{i+1}(d+1)\leq H_\zeta^{i+1}(d+1),$$
and the result follows.
\end{proof}

By the above proposition, we have that
$$H_{\eta}^M(\deg \eta_M)\leq H_{\zeta}^M(\deg \zeta_M).$$
As we pointed out in Remark~\ref{onH}, we have that $H_\zeta^M(\deg \zeta_M)=0$. Thus,  $H_{\eta}^M(d)=0$ for all $d\geq \deg \eta_M$. Now, if $\nu>M$, then $\deg \eta_{M+1}\geq \deg \eta_{M}$, and this would imply that
$$H_{\eta}^M(\deg \eta_{M+1})> 0,$$
which contradicts the previous sentence, and so we get $\nu\leq M$. Thus, we have shown the following

\begin{theorem}\label{thebound}
If $f$ is an increasing function, then the antichain sequence $\bar \mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_L)$ built above has the maximal length among antichain sequences of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ with degree growth bounded by $f$, and so $L=\mathfrak L_{f,m}^1$.
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Recursive construction for the length}
We can now give a recursive expression for $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^1$ by giving such an expression for $L$. We remind the reader that we are working under the assumption that $f$ is increasing. From the recursive construction of $\bar \mu$, we observe that, to find its length $L$, we simply need to keep track of the number of steps in the above construction (cf. \eqref{rec1} and \eqref{rec2}), and note that we stop once we reach the tuple $(0,\dots,0,f(L))$. To do this, we let $i$ denote our counter. Consider $\Psi_{f,m}=\Psi:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\times{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^{m}\to {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ given by
$$\Psi(i,(0,\dots,0,u_n))=i$$
with
\begin{align*}\Psi&(i-1,(u_1,\dots,u_r,0,\dots,0,u_m))\\&=\Psi(i,(u_1,\dots,u_r-1,f(i)-f(i-1)+u_m+1,0,\dots,0)),\quad r<m-1, \ u_r>0\end{align*}
 and
\begin{align*}\Psi(i-1,(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1},u_m))=\Psi(i,(u_1,\dots,u_{m-1}-1,f(i)-f(i-1)+u_m+1)),\quad u_{m-1}>0.
\end{align*}
Theorem \ref{thebound} yields that

\begin{corollary}\label{corn1}
If $f$ is an increasing function, then
$$\mathfrak L_{f,m}^1=\Psi_{m,f}(1,(f(1),0,\dots,0)).$$
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}\label{fortwo}
A straightforward computation shows that, if $m=2$, then
$$\mathfrak L_{f,2}^1=\Psi(1,(f(1),0))=f(1)+1,$$
which is what one expects.
\end{remark}

We now extend this recursive expression to $n>1$. As in the case $n=1$, we recursively build an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ of maximal length. Again, we assume that $f$ is increasing. Let $\bar \mu^{(1)}$ be the antichain sequence with degree growth bounded by $f_0(x):=f(x)$ constructed in \eqref{rec0} inside of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times\{0\}$. Let $L_1$ denote the length of $\bar \mu^{(1)}$; thus, $\bar\mu^{(1)}$ is of the form $$((\mu^{(1)}_1,0),\dots,(\mu^{(1)}_{L_1},0)).$$ Similarly, let $\bar \mu^{(2)}$ be the antichain sequence with degree growth bounded by $f_1(x):=f(x+L_1)$ constructed in \eqref{rec0} inside of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times\{1\}$, and let $L_2$ be the length of $\bar\mu^{(2)}$. Then, $$\bar\mu^{(2)}=((\mu^{(2)}_1,1),\dots,(\mu^{(2)}_{L_2},1)).$$ Continuing in this fashion, we build $\bar \mu^{(i)}$ for $i=3,\dots n$ as the antichain sequence with degree bounded growth bounded by $$f_{i-1}(x)=f(x+L_1+\cdots+ L_{i-1})$$ constructed in \eqref{rec0} inside of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times\{i-1\}$. It is easy
to
check that if $\bar \mu$ is the concatenation of $\bar \mu^{(1)},\dots,\bar \mu^{(n)}$, then $\bar \mu$ is an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ with
degree growth bounded by $f$.

To prove that $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n=L_1+\dots+ L_n$, we will need the following technical lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{techlem1}
Suppose $a_1,\dots,a_r$ and $b_1,\dots,b_s$ are sequences of nonnegative integers such that $b_1=\cdots=b_{s-1}\geq b_s$ and $b_1\geq a_i$ for all $i\leq r$. If $a_1+\cdots+a_r\leq b_1+\cdots+b_s$, then, for every $\gamma>0$, we have that
$$a_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots+a_r^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq b_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots+b_s^{\langle\gamma\rangle}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $a_1\geq \cdots\geq a_r$. We proceed by induction on $(r,s)$ using the lexicographic order. By \eqref{bineq1}, if $a\leq b$ then $a^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq b^{\langle\gamma\rangle}$. The case $r=1$ follows from this observation. It also follows from \eqref{bineq1} that $a^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+b^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq (a+b)^{\langle\gamma\rangle}$, and the case $s=1$ follows from this. Thus, we assume that $r,s>1$. We now consider two cases:

\noindent \underline{Case 1.} Suppose $b_s\geq a_r$. Then the sequences $a_1,\dots,a_{r-1}$ and $b_1,\dots,b_{s-1},b_s-a_r$ satisfy our hypothesis. By induction,
 $$a_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots+a_{r-1}^{\langle\gamma\rangle} \leq b_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots+b_{s-1}^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+ (b_s-a_r)^{\langle \gamma\rangle}.$$
Using that $a_r^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+(b_s-a_r)^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq b_s^{\langle\gamma\rangle}$ (which follows from \eqref{bineq1}), we get the desired inequality for the original sequences.

\noindent \underline{Case 2.} Suppose $b_s< a_r$. When $s=2$, we must have that $a_1+\cdots +a_{r-1}\leq b_1$, and so
$$a_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots+a_r^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq (a_1+\cdots +a_{r-1})^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+a_r^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\leq b_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+b_2^{\langle\gamma\rangle},$$
where the latter inequality follows from \eqref{bineq1}. So we assume that $s>2$. If it happens that $a_1+\cdots+a_{r}\leq b_1+\cdots+b_{s-1}$, then we are done by induction. So we can assume that
\begin{equation}\label{cas}
a_1+\cdots+a_{r-1} > b_1+\cdots+b_{s-2}.
\end{equation}
We have that
$$b_{s-1} + b_s\geq a_r +\left(a_1+\cdots +a_{r-1}-b_1-\cdots -b_{s-2}\right).$$
It follows from \eqref{bineq1}, and using \eqref{cas}, that
$$b_{s-1}^{\langle\gamma\rangle} +b_s^{\langle\gamma\rangle} \geq a_r^{\langle\gamma\rangle} + \left(a_1+\cdots +a_{r-1}-b_1-\cdots -b_{s-2}\right)^{\langle\gamma\rangle}.$$
Thus, it suffices to see that
$$b_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots + b_{s-2}^{\langle\gamma\rangle} + \left(a_1+\cdots +a_{r-1}-b_1-\cdots -b_{s-2}\right)^{\langle\gamma\rangle}\geq a_1^{\langle\gamma\rangle}+\cdots +a_{r-1}^{\langle\gamma\rangle},$$
but this follows by induction.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{forn}
If $f$ is an increasing function, then the above antichain sequence $\bar \mu$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m \times n$ has the maximal length among the antichain sequences of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ with degree growth bounded by $f$. In particular, $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n=L_1+\cdots+L_n$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First enumerate $\bar \mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_L)$, where $L=L_1+\cdots+L_n$. Let $\bar a=(a_1,\dots,a_\nu)$ be an antichain sequence of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$ of degree growth bounded by $f$. Suppose $\nu\geq L$, we must show that $\nu\leq L$. We assume, by reordering $\bar a$ if necessary (as in Lemma~\ref{reord}), that
$$\deg a_i\leq \deg a_{i+1},\quad i=1,\dots,\nu.$$
We also assume, by replacing $f$ and $\bar \mu$ if necessary (as in the discussion after Lemma \ref{reord} and prior to Proposition~\ref{ontheH}), that $\deg a_i=\deg \mu_i=f(i)$ for all $i=1,\dots,L$.

Given a sequence $\bar b=(b_1,\dots,b_k)$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n$, for each $i=0,1,\dots,k$ we let $H_{\bar b}^i:{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}\to{\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}$ be
$$H_{\bar b}^i(d)=\big|\{c\in {\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times n : \deg c=d \text{ and } c\ngeq b_1,\dots, b_i\}\big|.$$
If, for each $1\leq j\leq n$, we let $H_{\bar b}^{i,j}$ be the Hilbert-Samuel function of the subsequence of $\bar b$ consisting of its elements in the $j$-copy of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m$ (i.e., inside of ${\mathbb Z}_{\Ge 0}^m\times\{j-1\}$), then clearly
\begin{equation}\label{inth}
H_{\bar b}^i(d)=H_{\bar b}^{i,1}(d)+\cdots+H_{\bar b}^{i,n}(d).
\end{equation}
As in Remark \ref{onH}, by the construction of $\bar\mu$, we have that $H_{\bar \mu}^L(\deg \mu_L)=0$. Moreover, when $L_0+\cdots +L_{j-1} \leq i \leq L_0+\cdots +L_{j}$  (where $L_0=0$), by the construction of $\bar \mu$, we have that, for all $d\geq 0$,
\begin{align*}
0=H_{\bar\mu}^{i,1}(d)=\cdots=H_{\bar\mu}^{i,j-1}(d)\leq H_{\bar \mu}^{i,j}(d) \leq H_{\bar\mu}^{i,j+1}(d)=\cdots =H_{\bar\mu}^{i,n}(d)=\binom{m-1+d}{d},
\end{align*}
where the latter is the number of $m$-tuples of degree $d$. We now claim that, for all $i=1,\dots,L$ and $d\geq 0$, we have $H_{\bar a}^i(d)\leq H_{\bar \mu}^i(d)$. When $i=0$, we have
$$H_{\bar a}^0(d)=n\cdot\binom{m-1+d}{d}= H_{\bar \mu}^0(d).$$
Now, when $d<f(i+1)=\deg a_{i+1}=\deg \mu_{i+1}$, we have
$$H_{\bar a}^{i+1}(d)=H_{\bar a}^{i}(d)\leq H_{\bar \mu}^i(d)=H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1}(d).$$
For $d=f(i+1)$, we have
$$H_{\bar a}^{i+1}(d)=H_{\bar a}^i(d)-1\leq H_{\bar \mu}^i(d)-1=H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1}(d).$$
Now let $d\geq f(i+1)$. By Macaulay's theorem on the Hilbert-Samuel function (see \eqref{Mac1}), we have that
\begin{equation}\label{usep1}
H_{\bar a}^{i+1,j}(d+1)\leq H_{\bar a}^{i+1,j}(d)^{\langle d\rangle},
\end{equation}
Since for each $j=1,\dots,n$ and $i=1,\dots, L_j$, the sequence $(\mu^{(j)}_1,\dots,\mu^{(j)}_i)$  is compressed, the theorem of Macaulay also yields (see \eqref{Mac2})
\begin{equation}\label{usep2}
H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1,j}(d+1)=H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1,j}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}.
\end{equation}
It then follows, by induction on $d\geq f(i+1)$ and using Lemma \ref{techlem1}, that
\begin{equation}\label{usep3}
H_{\bar a}^{i+1,1}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}+\cdots+H_{\bar a}^{i+1,n}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}\leq H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1,1}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}+\cdots +H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1,n}(d)^{\langle d\rangle}.
\end{equation}
Thus, putting \eqref{inth}, \eqref{usep1}, \eqref{usep2}, and \eqref{usep3} together, we get
$$H_{\bar a}^{i+1}(d+1)\leq H_{\bar \mu}^{i+1}(d+1).$$
This proves our claim. The result now follows as in the discussion prior to Theorem~\ref{thebound}.
\end{proof}

By Proposition \ref{forn} and the recursive construction of $\bar \mu$, we obtain

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:bound}
If $f$ is an increasing function, then
$$\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n=\psi_n$$
where $\psi_0=0$ and $\psi_{i+1}=\Psi_{f_{i},m}(1,(f_i(1),0,\dots, 0))+\psi_i$, for $i\geq0$ . We recall that $f_i(x)=f(x+\psi_i)$.
\end{corollary}

By Remark \ref{fortwo}, when $m=2$, we get precisely \eqref{eq22}, as expected.

\begin{example}\label{ex:app}
Again, for the applications to the effective differential Nullstellensatz we consider $f(i)=2^i\ell$ and, in this case, we write $\mathfrak L_{\ell,m}^n$ instead of $\mathfrak L_{f,m}^n$.
\begin{enumerate}
 \item When $m=2$ and $n=1$, we get $\mathfrak L_{\ell,2}^1=2\ell+1$. So, in this case, the value of $T$ is
$$T=2^{2\ell +2}\ell.$$

\item More generally, when $m=2$, we get $\mathfrak L_{\ell,2}^n=b_n$ where $b_0=0$ and $b_{i+1}=2^{b_i +1}\ell +b_i +1$. For instance,
$$\mathfrak L_{\ell,2}^2=2^{2\ell+2}\ell +2\ell+2 \text{ and } \mathfrak L_{\ell,2}^3= 2^{2^{2\ell+2}+2\ell+3}\ell+2^{2\ell +2}+2\ell+3.$$

\item For $m=3$, up until now no explicit values of $T$ were known. Let $n=1$ and $\ell=1$, then
$$\mathfrak L_{1,3}^1=\Psi_{f,3}(1,(2,0,0))=70,$$
and so, in this case, $T=2^{71}$. Note that the antichain sequence of maximal length built in \eqref{rec0} takes the form
\vspace{.1in}

\noindent $(2,0,0)$

\vspace{.05in}
\noindent $(1,3,0), (1,2,5), (1,1, 14), (1,0,31)$

\vspace{.05in}
\noindent $(0,64,0), (0,63,2^7 -63), (0,62, 2^8-62),\ldots , (0,1,2^{69}-1), (0,0,2^{70})$
\vspace{.1in}

\item For $m=3$, $n=1$ and $\ell=2$, we get $\mathfrak L_{2,3}^1= 2^{2^{520}+520}+2^{520}+519$. So the value of $T$ is
$$T=2^{2^{2^{520}+520}+2^{520}+521}.$$
In this case, the antichain of maximal length takes the form
\vspace{.1in}

\noindent $(4,0,0)$

\vspace{.05in}
\noindent $(3,5,0), (3,4,9), \dots, (3,0,2^8-3)$

\vspace{.05in}
\noindent $(2,2^{9}-2,0), (2,2^9-3,2^{10}-2^9+1),\dots, (2,0,2^{2^9 +7}-2)$

\vspace{.05in}
\noindent $(1,2^{2^9 +8}-1,0),(1,2^{2^9+8}-2,2^{2^9+9}-2^{2^9+8}+1),\dots,(1,0,2^{2^{2^9+8}+2^9+7}-1)$

\vspace{.05in}
\noindent $(0,2^{2^{2^9+8}+2^9+8},0),(0,2^{2^{2^9+8}+2^9+8}-1,2^{2^{2^9+8}+2^9+9}-2^{2^{2^9+8}+2^9+8}+1),\dots,(0,0,2^{2^{2^{2^9+8}2^9+8}+2^{2^9+8}+2^9+8})$

\end{enumerate}
\end{example}

\setlength{\bibsep}{6pt}
\bibliographystyle{model1b-num-names}