\section{Introduction}

The study of interactions mediated via the weak nuclear force is of importance to a
large number of fields in physics. However, it is of particular importance to
the field of astrophysics because of the longer timescale on which weak
interactions operate as compared to the strong and electromagnetic interactions.
This is evidenced by the impact that new
insights into weak reaction physics have on astrophysical models
~\citep{Langanke2003Rev}. Specifically, electron-capture
reactions play a prominent role in high-density environments such as
those found in the late stages of massive star evolution~\citep{Heger2001,Martinez-Pinedo2014},
thermonuclear~\citep{Iwamoto1999,Brachwitz2000}
and core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe)~\citep{Hix2003,Janka200738}, neutron
stars~\citep{Gupta2007,Schatz2014}, and compact object merger events
~\citep{Goriely2015}. Realistic simulations of these environments rely on
accurate nuclear physics inputs including electron-capture rates.

Electron-capture rates depend sensitively on Gamow-Teller (GT)
transition-strength distributions in the $\beta^{+}$ direction. These
transition strengths characterize nuclear excitations in which
a single unit of spin and isospin are transferred
($\Delta S, \Delta T=1$), with no transfer
of orbital angular momentum ($\Delta L=0$).
While the main component of electron capture occurs on the
ground state configuration of a nucleus, in high temperature
stellar environments electron captures on
thermally-populated excited states of the parent nucleus
can also contribute significantly to the overall rate
\citep{Langanke2000}. Unfortunately, it is difficult to obtain information
about transitions from excited states in the laboratory.
Compounding the problem is the fact that in order to accurately include
electron capture in simulations one must include electron captures on a
wide range of nuclei.
Hence, in general one must rely on theoretical models for a complete description of
stellar electron-capture rates.
On the other hand, measurements of Gamow-Teller strength distributions in a
representative set of nuclei are important for the development and benchmarking
of robust theories. At the same time, it is critical that
theoretical and computational efforts provide guidance to experimenters
on which measurements to perform.

Presently, configuration-interaction (shell-model) calculations are the primary method for
producing reliable GT strength distributions near stability in the
$sd$- and $pf$- shells ($8<[N,Z]<20$ and $20<[N,Z]<40$, respectively)
for electron capture on both ground and excited
states~\citep{Oda1994,Langanke2003}. Quasi-particle random-phase
approximation (QRPA) calculations have also been utilized to
estimate GT strengths for large sets of nuclei, but only
where transitions from the ground state are considered
~\citep{NPaar2009,Moller19901,Dzhioev2010,YNiu2011,Nabi2004237}.
Furthermore, comprehensive sets of electron-capture rates (as a function of density
and temperature) for a large number of nuclei based on QRPA calculations have not
been published.

Direct and indirect experiments, such as $\beta$-decay and charge-exchange
(CE) measurements respectively, provide robust benchmarks for theoretical GT
strengths and therefore are crucial for our understanding of astrophysical
electron-capture rates. Unfortunately, electron-capture and $\beta$-decay experiments can
only access states in a limited Q-value window. Furthermore, for neutron-rich nuclei
$\beta$-decay only provides information in the $\beta^-$
direction, which is of limited use for electron-capture studies.
Intermediate energy ($\gtrsim$ 100 MeV/u) CE reactions in the
$\beta^+$ direction, however, connect the same initial and final states as electron
capture, providing information about transitions up to high excitation energies,
and are thus well suited to study the full Gamow-Teller strength distribution
of interest. At these energies, CE measurements are accurate at the $\sim$10\%
level and are therefore able to provide rigorous tests
of theoretical Gamow-Teller strengths and derived electron-capture rates.

Recently, the results from (n,p), ($d$,$\nuc{2}{He}$), and ($t$,$\nuc{3}{He}$)
CE reactions on nuclei in the $pf$-shell
were systematically compared \citep{Cole2012,Scott2014,Noji2014}
with shell-model calculations using the KB3G \citep{KB3G} and GXPF1a
\citep{GXPF1A} effective interactions in the $pf$-model space, and with
calculations based on the QRPA formalism of \citet{Moller19901}.
The authors compared shell-model and QRPA derived electron-capture
rates against those derived from CE measurements.
It was found that the QRPA calculations
systematically overestimate the electron-capture rates ($\sim$100-3000\%,
depending on density and temperature), whereas the shell-model estimates produce rates
similar to those measured experimentally ($\sim$1-50\%)~\citep{Cole2012}.
Unfortunately, shell-model calculations are
computationally challenging for nuclei beyond the
$pf$-shell, and therefore weak rates used in high-density astrophysical
calculations most commonly rely on less accurate methods.
In each of these cases, systematic
and random error exist, and it is therefore
important to understand the sensitivity of astrophysical simulations
to uncertainties in these rates.

Sensitivity studies are useful tools for guiding theoretical and
experimental efforts because they highlight nuclei
that should be given particular focus, and they indicate the accuracy
with which the parameters of interest need to be known.
They also illustrate how strongly the current parameter
uncertainties affect the outcome of
the astrophysical simulations. In this work, we perform $\sim150$
collapse simulations examining how systematic and statistical variations of the electron-capture
rates impact the collapse, bounce and pre-explosion phases of core-collapse
supernovae simulations over a range of presupernova progenitors and equations
of state (EOS). We describe the development of a
modular and open-source weak reaction rate library for use in
astrophysical simulations and its first implementation using the stellar
core-collapse code \texttt{GR1D}~\citep{OConnor2010}.
In the following sections, we show that the inner core of the protoneutron star (PNS)
and the observable peak neutrino-luminosity from core bounce and shock formation
depend sensitively (+16/-4\,\% and $\pm 20$\%, respectively) on the electron-capture
rates of neutron-rich nuclei.
As variations on this level are not easily reproduced from uncertainties in other inputs
to the simulations, they motivate the development of new theoretical models for
electron-capture rates as well as relevant measurements, which together will constrain
these and other key parameters discussed in this work.

In Section~\ref{weakrates} we discuss previous development of
weak rates for astrophysics, as well as the implementations made in
this work. In Section~\ref{core-collapse} we motivate the importance of
electron-capture rates during the core-collapse phase of CCSNe, and in
Section~\ref{codes} we describe the codes we have utilized and developed
for this work. We detail the sensitivity studies performed in
Section~\ref{sensitivity} and conclude in Section~\ref{conclusion}.

\section{Astrophysical weak interaction rates}
\label{weakrates}
From the birth to the death of massive stars, the weak nuclear force
is a primary actor in the story of stellar evolution~\citep{Langanke2003Rev}.
Weak interactions are important ingredients for nucleosynthesis and also
for the internal structure of evolving stars, as they sensitively determine the
electron-to-baryon ratio $Y_e$ and the iron-core mass
just prior to core-collapse~\citep{Heger2001}.
Unlike the conditions present during quasistatic stellar evolution, however, in
the core of a collapsing star the density and temperature are high
enough that nuclear and electromagnetic reactions equilibrate~\citep{Iliadis2007}.
Weak reactions, on the other hand,
operate much more slowly and thus continue to affect the nuclear composition,
the neutrino emission, and ultimately the dynamics of the entire event.

As compared to other
semi-leptonic weak interactions, electron capture has a particularly
remarkable impact on the core-collapse environment~\citep{Langanke2014305}.
In the final stages of a star's life, the nuclear-energy generation rate
of the core that normally sustains a star against gravitational collapse
is absent because the core is composed of highly stable iron peak nuclei.
Instead, at these late times the
electron-degeneracy pressure provides the primary
stability against collapse. It is therefore
apparent that electron captures that remove electrons from the system
will have dramatic consequences for this environment.
Furthermore, the electron chemical
potential $\mu_e$ is sufficiently large to overcome
Q-value restrictions, and so the electron-capture rates are
significant.

Just prior to and during the early moments of collapse, other weak interactions
can also play a role. \citet{MartinezPinedo2000} have shown that $\beta^-$-decay
can temporarily compete with electron capture when $Y_e$=0.42-0.46, which can
occur during Si shell burning and the early stages of collapse. However, as
collapse ensues, $\mu_e$ quickly becomes large enough that $\beta$-decay electrons
are energetically blocked due to degeneracy. Similarly, $\beta^+$-decay
can also compete with electron-capture for nuclei with
$Q_{e+}>2m_ec^2$, but in the core-collapse environment neutron-rich
conditions are favored, and Q$_{e+}$ is below this threshold.

The importance of reactions mediated by the weak nuclear force,
and specifically electron capture, as
it pertains to core-collapse was first demonstrated by~\citet{Bethe1979}.
Not long after, the theory of stellar electron capture was formalized
by Fuller, Fowler, and Newman (FFN)~\citep{Fuller1982}.
In their pioneering work they published the first tabulation of weak
interaction rates ($\beta^\pm$-decay and $e^\pm$-capture) considering
presupernova conditions where allowed Fermi and Gamow-Teller (GT) transitions
dominate. Since then, advancements in computational resources have allowed
for detailed nuclear shell-model calculations that have increased
the accuracy of the weak-interaction theory first outlined by FFN.
Major weak-interaction rate tabulations that derive from a combination
of experimental data and shell-model effective interactions are the
\citet{Oda1994} and \citet{Langanke2000} tabulations for $sd$- (A=17-39)
and $pf$-shell (A=45-65) nuclei respectively.
For heavier nuclei, the Shell Model Monte Carlo (SMMC)
approach has been employed to preserve nuclear properties
such as the correlation energy scale in very large
model spaces~\citep{Langanke2003}. \citet{Langanke2003}
have combined this method with an RPA technique to estimate
electron-capture rates at densities and temperatures relevant
during core-collapse for nuclei in the $pfg/sdg$-shell (A=65-112),
which have come to be known as the LMSH rates. \citet{Juodagalvis2010}
have also produced a set of more than 2200 additional rates based
on the same RPA technique but utilizing a Fermi--Dirac parameterization
instead of the more computationally expensive SMMC calculations.
The individual rates were not released, but instead these rates were
averaged over NSE abundances and reported along a characteristic
core-collapse ($\rho,T,Y_e$) trajectory. Unfortunately, this is not suitable for
the present study in which we investigate the detailed sensitivity
on a nucleus by nucleus basis.

In this work, we have implemented each of the rate tabulations listed in
Table~\ref{table:ranges}, which together
contain 445 rates for 304 unique nuclei over a large density and
temperature grid. This library has been built as a standalone module
and has also been implemented into the neutrino-interaction library \texttt{NuLib}
\citep{OConnor2015} for use in neutrino-transport routines employed by the spherically-symmetric,
general-relativistic stellar collapse code \texttt{GR1D}~\citep{OConnor2015}--see Section~\ref{codes} for more information. Details on the density and temperature range for each of the
included rate tabulations are shown in Table~\ref{table:ranges}. The mass coverage of each rate
table is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tables}.

\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Density, temperature and mass ranges for the compiled weak rate set}
\label{table:ranges}
\begin{tabular}{*{9}{c}}
 \toprule
 \toprule
 & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Model space} \\
 \midrule
 Table & $s$ & $p$ & $sd$ & $pf$ & $pfg$/$sdg$ & T (GK) & $\mathrm{Log}_{10}(\rho Y_e$ g\,cm$^{-3})$ & Ref. \\
 \midrule
 \centering
 FFN & x &  & x & x &  & 0.01 - 100 & 1.0 - 11 & \citet{Fuller1982} \\
 ODA & x &  & x &   &  & 0.01 - 30 & 1.0 - 11 & \citet{Oda1994} \\
 LMP & x &  &  & x &  & 0.01 - 100 & 1.0 - 11 & \citet{Langanke2003} \\
 LMSH &  &  &  &  & x & 8.12 - 39.1 & 9.22 - 12.4 & \citet{Hix2003,Langanke2001a} \\
 Approx. & x & x & x & x & x & - & - & \citet{Langanke2003} \\
 \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\begin{figure*}[ht]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{rates_big.pdf}
 \caption{ Chart of the nuclear species included in each weak rate table.
 The table to which a species belongs is given by the color and legend in
 the figure. The Oda set contains rates for lower mass $sd$-shell nuclei
 (light blue), the LMP set contains rates for the intermediate mass $pf$-shell
 nuclei (green), and the LMSH set contains rates for the heavier mass $pfg$/$sdg$-shell
 nuclei near stability (red). The FFN tabulation provides rates across the $sd$ and
 $pf$-shells (dark blue). Squares individually bordered in black are stable nuclei.
 The tables are mutually exclusive except for FFN which spans many nuclear
 shells. To distinguish between nuclei with rates from FFN and another table,
 the border of the FFN set has been outlined with a black and white line.
 }
 \label{fig:tables}
\end{figure*}

The LMP+LMSH rates were first implemented into a spherically-symmetric
core-collapse simulation by \citet{Hix2003}.
They compared simulations with this set of shell-model based electron-capture
rates against simulations that utilized
the \citet{Bruenn1985} prescription for electron capture.
The evolution of the core-collapse phase and the structural differences
in the core at bounce seen in that work were significant.
In light of the differences that exist between
theoretical estimates for electron-capture rates and those inferred
from CE experiments, these results motivate the need for a detailed sensitivity study.

To handle the large number of nuclei not included in the tables,
\citet{Hix2003} utilized an average electron-capture neutrino emissivity
for all nuclei which lacked a shell-model based rate. Here, instead of
performing averaging, we employ the approximate routine of \citet{Langanke2003},
which is based on the parameterization of the electron-capture rate as a function of the
ground state to ground state Q-value. This approximation was first described by
\citet{Fuller1985} and was later parameterized and fit to shell-model calculations
in the $pf$-shell by \citet{Langanke2003}. In this approximation, the
electron-capture rate is written as:

\begin{align}
\label{eq:ec}
\lambda_{\mathrm{EC}} = \dfrac{\textrm{ln}2\cdot B}{K}\left(\dfrac{T}{m_e c^2}\right)^5[F_4(\eta)
             - 2\chi F_3(\eta)+\chi^2F_2(\eta)]
\end{align}
and the neutrino-energy loss rate is,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nu}
\lambda_{\nu_e} = \dfrac{\textrm{ln}2\cdot B}{K}\left(\dfrac{T}{m_e c^2}\right)^6[F_5(\eta)
             - 2\chi F_4(\eta)+\chi^2F_3(\eta)],
\end{align}
where $m_e$ is the electron mass, $K$ = 6146 s, $F_k$ are Fermi integrals of rank $k$
and degeneracy $\eta$,
$\chi = (Q-\Delta E)/T$, $\eta = \chi + \mu_e/T$, and
$T$ and $\mu_e$ are the temperature and electron chemical potential.
$B$ (= 4.6) and $\Delta E$ (= 2.5 MeV) are fit parameters taken from \citet{Langanke2003}
and respectively represent effective values for the transition strength and
energy difference between final and initial excited states.

In Figure~\ref{fig:approx}
we compare the rate estimates from this approximation and those from the tables.
As is easily seen from the figure, the variance of the shell-model rates
depends sensitively on the density of the environment.
At lower densities, where the electron chemical-potential and
electron capture Q-value are comparable ($\mu_e \approx Q_{\mathrm{EC}}$),
the location of excited states in the daughter nucleus, and the associated
Gamow-Teller transition strength, sensitively determine the total electron-capture
rate for a nucleus. New final states in the daughter nucleus
become accessible as the electron Fermi-energy, which scales with $\mu_e$,
increases beyond the energy
required to populate them via allowed electron capture.
The large scatter of the electron-capture rates at lower densities (Fig.~\ref{fig:approx})
is because the Fermi energy is comparable to the excited state energies of the
daughter nuclei and the internal structure of each nucleus varies significantly.
During collapse,
as the density increases and the material becomes more neutron rich due to
successive electron captures, both the magnitude of the average
electron capture Q-value and $\mu_e$ increase. However, $\mu_e$
increases more quickly with density than the reaction Q-values do,
and eventually $\mu_e \gg Q_{\mathrm{EC}}$ implying that the majority
of the electron-capture channels are open.
In this regime the rate is less sensitive to the excitation energy
spectrum of the daughter nucleus, and instead depends more strongly on the total GT strength
across all possible final states. The decrease in the variance of the shell-model electron-capture
rates in the higher density case of Figure \ref{fig:approx} is a result of this.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=.9]{approx_color.pdf}
 \caption{Panel (a): Q-value dependence of electron-capture rates at two
 points along a core-collapse trajectory. The scattered points
 are tabulated (shell-model and SMMC) rates for each electron-capture
 reaction, while the black points are the approximate rates given by Eq.~\ref{eq:ec}.
 Panel (b): The residual differences between log$_{10}$ of the shell-model rates and the
 approximate rates for each nucleus in the weak-rate library. An example residual is indicated
 on panel (a). When the density and temperature
 of a simulation evolve outside the range of the rate tables
 (see Table~\ref{table:ranges}), rates are calculated via the approximate
 routines in order to avoid an artificial cut off imposed by the table boundaries.
 Rates are estimated between density and temperature grid points
 via monotonic cubic-spline interpolation as described by~\citet{Steffen1990}.}
 \label{fig:approx}
\end{figure}

While the parameters of Eqs.~\ref{eq:ec} and~\ref{eq:nu} were originally fit from the
LMP nuclei, there is reasonable agreement of the approximation with the other tabulated rates.
Outside of these tables, significant deviations from the estimates of this approximation
may exist, specifically for heavier neutron rich nuclei~\citep{Juodagalvis2008}.
But for the purpose of a sensitivity study,
this approximation---from which the majority of the rates are
calculated---is used as a base estimate off which the
electron-capture rates may be varied.
In Section~\ref{species dependent} we show, given this set of rates,
that heavier neutron-rich nuclei are the most
important in the simulations.
However, electron-capture rates developed from sophisticated theoretical models do not exist
for individual nuclei in this region, and thus cannot be benchmarked against experimental measurements.
Therefore, the estimates provided by the approximation of Eqs.~\ref{eq:ec} and~\ref{eq:nu} may
be systematically off by a considerable amount. As we will show,
changes in the predicted rates for these nuclei have significant consequences for the simulations,
motivating the need for experimental and theoretical efforts to constrain the rates of
these species.

\section{Core collapse and the role of electron capture}
\label{core-collapse}
Just prior to collapse, the temperature of the stellar core
becomes high enough ($T\gtrsim 0.5 \, \textrm{MeV}$) that the photon gas
has sufficient energy to photodissociate nuclei into alpha particles and free nucleons.
However, the density is also high ($\rho\gtrsim 10^9$g\,cm$^{-3}$) resulting
in large nuclear reaction rates that rapidly form nuclei from these light particles.
The balance reached between these competing processes is
known as Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium (NSE).
If the entropy is sufficiently low and the mass fraction of free nucleons is small
compared to that of nuclei, the most abundant nucleus in NSE is the species
with the highest binding energy for a given electron-fraction, $Y_e$(= Z/A)
\citep{MartinezPinedo2000}. A broad distribution of abundant nuclei
forms due to finite temperatures which distribute the abundances around these peak nuclei.

As collapse ensues and the central density increases through the first
few decades, electron captures
are the primary engine of deleptonization. Electrons are removed
from the system and the produced electron-neutrinos ($\nu_e$)
are able to freely stream out of the core, decreasing both $Y_e$ and total lepton
fraction $Y_l$. As $Y_e$ decreases, peak abundances move toward
neutron-rich nuclei, and the core begins to cool as $\nu_e$'s carry away energy and
entropy. Electron captures continue to dominate the neutrino
transport during collapse until the last few milliseconds before core bounce.
In these final moments, the central density reaches a few times 10$^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$,
which is large enough that the neutrino mean free path begins to shorten due
to coherent scattering on heavy nuclei. This increase in the $\nu_e$-scattering
cross section results in a neutrino diffusion time that exceeds the collapse time,
thereby trapping the electron neutrinos in the inward flow of matter.
After this occurs, the conversion of electrons
into electron-neutrinos via electron captures no longer removes
leptons from the core. Instead, further electron captures increase
the electron-neutrino fraction $Y_{\nu_e}$ in order to conserve the
now constant lepton fraction and bring the system of electrons and electron
neutrinos into equilibrium.

Prior to the work of~\citet{Langanke2001a} it was believed that electron
captures on free protons were of greater importance than captures on nuclei
during collapse. The main considerations involved were that electron
capture on free protons has a higher rate owing to a smaller Q-value,
and that nuclei with neutron number N $\geq$ 40 have full $pf$-shell
single particle states. Thus, the addition of another neutron
via an allowed electron-capture transition would be Fermi-blocked.
\citet{Langanke2001a} recognized that the
many-body nuclear states have mixed configurations and do not follow
a simple Hartree-Fock filling of single particle orbitals. They also
suggested that thermal excitation of nucleons to the $g_{9/2}$ orbital
creates vacancies in the $pf$-shell, and together with
configuration mixing, electron capture on bound protons is unblocked.
Furthermore, because of the low entropy in the core, and the neutron-rich conditions,
the abundance of heavy nuclei is several orders of magnitude higher than that of
free protons, resulting in a higher overall electron-capture rate.
Thus, because electron captures on nuclei dominate, a detailed
investigation of the contribution each species has to the deleptonization
of the collapsing
core, and in particular a determination of which nuclei are most important and
therefore deserve further experimental and
theoretical focus, would be of great value.

\section{Codes \& Methods}
\label{codes}
\subsection{\texttt{NuLib}}
In addition to the electron captures rates developed in this paper,
other rates are needed to perform core-collapse simulations.  The
collection of rates we use is contained in \texttt{NuLib} \citep{OConnor2015},
an open-source, neutrino-interaction library available as a GitHub
repository at http://www.\texttt{NuLib}.org. \texttt{NuLib} contains routines for
calculating electron-type neutrino/antineutrino charged-current
absorption opacities on nucleons with corrections for weak magnetism and
nucleon recoil based on the formalism of \citet{Burrows2006} and
\citet{Horowitz2002}. Neutrino emissivities for these processes are
determined via Kirchhoff's law which equates the absorption rate of a
equilibrium neutrino distribution to the emission rate of the
underlying matter. Elastic scattering of neutrinos on nucleons, and
coherent scattering of neutrons on alpha particles and heavy nuclei is
also included in \texttt{NuLib}. For the former we include corrections
for weak magnetism and nucleon recoil, and for the latter we include corrections
from ion-ion correlations \citep{Horowitz1997}, electron polarization,
and the nuclear form factor. Inelastic scattering of neutrinos on
electrons is included based on the expressions of
\citet{Bruenn1985}. Emissivities of heavy-lepton neutrino/antineutrino
pairs via electron-positron annihilation and nucleon-nucleon
Bremsstrahlung are computed ignoring final state neutrino
blocking. For neutrino-antineutrino annihilation, instead of computing
the non-linear absorption opacity during the simulation, we make use
of an effective absorption opacity, which has been shown to be an
excellent approximation for core-collapse supernovae
\citep{OConnor2015}.

\subsection{\texttt{GR1D}}
We test our electron-capture rate implementation, and study the
sensitivities of the core-collapse phase to these rates using the code \texttt{GR1D}
\citep{OConnor2010,OConnor2015}. \texttt{GR1D} is an open-source
spherically-symmetric general-relativistic neutrino-transport and
hydrodynamics code used for studying stellar collapse and the early
stages of a core-collapse supernova. For details of the hydrodynamics
module of \texttt{GR1D} we refer the reader to \cite{OConnor2010}. The neutrino
transport is handled though a general-relativistic, energy-dependent
two-moment formalism for which extensive details can be found in
\citet{OConnor2015}. Our scheme numerically solves for the time
evolution of the first two moments of the neutrino distribution
function: the neutrino energy density and the neutrino momentum
density. The simulations utilize 18 energy groups
logarithmically spaced between 0 and 250\,MeV.
Only electron type neutrinos are evolved until the central density reaches
$10^{12}$\,g\,cm$^{-3}$, after which electron anti-neutrinos and a
characteristic heavy lepton neutrino are included. However, these latter two
neutrinos do not become important until core bounce has occurred.
Spatial fluxes of the neutrino moments are treated explicitly.  Inelastic neutrino-electron
scattering is handled explicitly until the central density reaches
10$^{12}$\,g\,cm$^{-3}$ at which point an implicit treatment is used.
Together \texttt{NuLib} and \texttt{GR1D} provide a robust and extendable
code base, making them ideal for the present study.

\subsection{Neutrino emission via electron capture}
Electron capture is associated with the emission of electron neutrinos
and so the electron-capture rate is proportional to the integrated
spectrum of $\nu_e$ emitted per second.
The rate for a particular nuclide, as tabulated in the implemented rate tables,
is defined as the sum of the rates for each of the individual nuclear transitions
\begin{align}
\lambda = \sum\limits_{ij} \lambda_{ij},
\end{align}
where indices $i$ and $j$ correspond to levels in the parent and daughter
nucleus respectively. The spectra of emitted neutrinos from the
electrons capturing on nuclei, described by the matter temperature $T$ and
electron chemical potential $\mu_e$, will vary based on the initial and final
states involved owing to a different reaction Q-value,
\begin{align}
Q^{\mathrm{EC}}_{ij} = Q_{g.s.} + E_i - E_j
\end{align}
where $Q_{g.s.}$ is the atomic mass difference of the initial and
final nuclei, and $E_i$ and $E_j$ are the excitation energies of
the populated states in the parent and daughter nucleus respectively.
The most comprehensive solution to constructing neutrino spectra
would be to coherently sum the spectra of neutrinos emitted from each
nuclear transition. However this would rely upon rate tabulations
for individual transitions which are not presently available.
Thus, we implement an effective neutrino spectra
in terms of a single reaction Q-value, $q$, that is chosen to constrain
the average energy of the spectrum to match that from the tabulated
rates~\citep{Langanke2001b},
\begin{align}
n(E_\nu,q)=E_\nu^2(E_\nu-q)^2\dfrac{N}{1+\textrm{exp}\{(E_\nu-q-\mu_e)/kT\}}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:avge}
\langle E_\nu \rangle =
\dfrac{\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}E_\nu n(E_\nu,q) dE_\nu}{\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}n(E_\nu,q) dE_\nu} =
\dfrac{\lambda_\nu}{\lambda_{\mathrm{EC}}+\lambda_{\beta^+}},
\end{align}
where $n(E_\nu,q)$ is the neutrino distribution function
and is normalized to the total electron-capture rate for a particular nuclear species.
$\lambda_\nu$, $\lambda_{\beta^+}$, and $\lambda_{\mathrm{EC}}$ are the neutrino energy loss,
positron emission, and electron-capture rates respectively.
Eq.~\ref{eq:avge} is solved numerically for the effective Q-value, $q = q_{\textrm{eff}}$,
which then defines the effective neutrino spectrum for the electron-capture
reaction of interest at a given $\rho$, $T$, and $Y_e$. The approximate
neutrino spectra generated in this way are
unable to reproduce complex structure such as double peaking in the true neutrino
distribution, which may occur when there is a resonant
allowed transition ($Q^{\textrm{EC}}_{ij}\sim 0$) between an excited parent
state and the daughter-nucleus ground state. However, it approximates
singly-peaked neutrino distributions quite well~\citep{Langanke2001b}. The
spectrum is normalized to the total electron-capture rate via Gaussian-Legendre
quadrature with an algorithm we developed to adaptively adjust the range of integration
to the full width of the spectrum.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{eos.pdf}
 \caption{ The average nuclear mass (divided by two),
 charge, and electron-capture rate versus central density
 for the three EOS utilized in this study. The colors indicate
 different EOS, while the line style indicate which quantity is
 plotted. All three EOS
 have nearly identical abundance distributions up to densities
 of 2$\cdot$10$^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Beyond this point the TMA EOS
 has a heavier and slightly more neutron rich
 mass distribution compared to both SFHo and DD2, but maintains
 a comparable average electron capture rate overall. These simulations
 each utilize the s15WW95 progenitor.}
 \label{fig:eos_mass}
\end{figure}

Utilizing these spectra, the electron-capture neutrino emissivity for a
given nuclear species is calculated as
\begin{align}
\eta_i(E_k) = \dfrac{1}{4\pi} E_k n_i n(E_k,q_{\textrm{eff}}),
\end{align}
where the $\nu_e$'s are assumed to be emitted isotropically, $n_i$ is the
number density for the $i$-th nucleus, $n(E_k,q_{\textrm{eff}})$ is the neutrino
spectra evaluated at the effective Q-value that solves  Eq.~\ref{eq:avge},
and $E_k$ indicates the energy of energy group $k$.
Evaluation of the emissivity is done point wise at the centroid of each energy bin,
and has units erg/(cm$^3\cdot$sr$\cdot$s$\cdot$MeV).

For estimates of the NSE number densities used above, we
utilize several EOS from~\citet{Hempel2010}. In particular, we use the SFHo
EOS and internally consistent NSE
distribution developed by~\citet{Steiner2013} for our primary
EOS. We also compare with the DD2~\citep{Typel2010}
and TMA~\citep{Toki1995} EOS, each with self-consistent, but different,
NSEs. The SFHo and DD2 EOS were chosen because they currently best
satisfy both nuclear and astrophysical constraints~\citep{Fischer2014}.
Instead of meson self-interactions, the DD2 EOS implements
density-dependent meson-nucleon couplings which have been
used successfully to describe nuclear structure in a wide region of the nuclear
chart and have also been tested in heavy-ion collisions~\citep{Typel2010}.
For nuclear masses, the SFHo and DD2 NSE distributions rely on the
Finite Range Drop Model (FRDM) from \citet{Moller1995} and \citet{Moller1997},
whereas the TMA EOS utilizes a mass table calculated by~\citet{Geng2005}.
For consistency, in addition to NSE abundances, these mass distributions
are also utilized in the calculation of reaction Q-values for
use in Eq.~\ref{eq:ec}.

\section{Sensitivity study}
\label{sensitivity}
\subsection{Reference simulations}
In order to establish reference simulations off which variations are performed,
we have utilized the widely studied 15 solar mass, solar metallicity
progenitor s15WW95~\citep{Woosley1995}, as well as s12, s20, and s40 from WH07~\citep{WOOSLEY2007},
which span the range of stellar compactness $\xi_{2.5}$\citep{OConnor2011} in this model set.
For more details, see the progenitor sensitivity
subsection below. For each progenitor we use the SFHo EOS described above,
and in addition, for s15WW95 we also employ the DD2 and TMA EOS and
NSE distributions.

For each reference simulation, a
full complement of neutrino-interaction microphysics is incorporated via \texttt{NuLib},
which includes the newly implemented weak rates library described here.
The weak-rate tables were included using the following priority hierarchy:
$LMP > LMSH > Oda > Approx.$, ensuring that rates from sources with higher priority are
utilized where rate estimates from multiple sources exist. $Approx.$ indicates the parameterized rate
approximation of Eqs.~\ref{eq:ec} and~\ref{eq:nu}, which is used for nuclei not included in the tables
and for regions of density and temperature which are beyond the
limits found in Table~\ref{table:ranges}. For consistency, only tables that
derive from shell-model calculations are utilized.

For each progenitor and EOS we perform collapse simulations in {\tt{GR1D}} and follow the
evolution until at least $\sim100\,$ms after bounce. The collapse proceeds as described
in Section \ref{core-collapse}. Differences in the collapse evolution for different progenitors
stem from the hydrostatic conditions in the cores of these massive stars at the onset of
collapse. For stars with large $\xi_{2.5}$, larger central temperatures are needed to
balance gravity. This gives lower central densities, and therefore less electron capture
during the final stages of stellar evolution. The range of initial central $Y_e$ goes from $\sim$0.422 for
the s15WW95 model to $\sim$0.447 for the s40WH07 model, or a range of $\sim$6\%.
After neutrino trapping sets in, we see a range of trapped lepton-fraction of
$\sim$0.288\,--\,0.297, where s40WH07 and s12WH07 have the minimum and maximum trapped
$Y_l$, respectively. The overall higher deleptonization rate for the more compact
progenitors is due to both longer collapse times and larger matter temperatures, which
enhance the electron-capture rates.

Simulations utilizing different EOS, while holding all else constant, demonstrate
only small variations in the density, temperature, and $Y_e$ central-zone trajectories
up to bounce. Figure~\ref{fig:eos_mass} details the abundance distributions for each EOS,
as well as the resulting average electron capture rate along a collapse trajectory.
The NSE distributions of all three EOS are largely similar early on, but
differences in the mass table of the TMA EOS cause it to diverge from the others starting around
$1-2\times10^{12}$g\,cm$^{-3}$. However, differences are seen in the electron-capture
rate only after central densities of $2\times10^{12}$g\,cm$^{-3}$,
where any effect on the evolution is suppressed because of neutrino trapping.
Near nuclear saturation density, however, the differences in EOS
begin to play a more important role. The density-dependent couplings of the DD2 EOS, for
instance, result in higher central temperatures at bounce. However, since the average rate in simulations
utilizing each of the EOS are nearly identical, they result in
a difference of trapped lepton-fraction of only a fraction of a percent. For more
information on the sensitivity of the electron and lepton fractions to the
EOS during collapse see \citet{Fischer2014}.

Together, these reference calculations span a wide range of progenitor and EOS dependences
that ensure a configuration-independent assessment of the core-collapse sensitivity
to electron capture on nuclei, and furthermore demonstrate the universality of collapse.
In what follows, we detail the results primarily for
variations on the s15WW95+SFHo reference simulation, but describe any significant differences, where they
exist, in relation to variations on the other progenitor+EOS reference simulations.

\subsection{Species dependent sensitivity}
\label{species dependent}
To understand the sensitivity of core-collapse to different
regions of electron capturing nuclei, we use the central zone collapse profile
from our reference simulation
to decompose the change of the electron fraction with time, $\dot Y_e$, into
the electron captures of each nuclear species. While using only the central zone
is an approximation, we justify this by noting the observation by \citet{Liebendorfer2005}
that the electron fraction profiles typically correlate quite well with density during the
collapse phase.  Therefore, matter will generally have the same electron capture history.
We calculate $\dot Y_e$ and account for $\nu_e$ re-absorption in the following energy-dependent way,
\begin{align} \label{eq:yedot}
\dot Y_e^i = \frac{4\pi\alpha}{\rho N_a}\sum\limits_k \frac{\Delta \epsilon_k\cdot\eta_i(\epsilon_k)}{\epsilon_k}\cdot \left(1-\frac{E_k}{B_k}\right)
\end{align}
where $\dot Y_e^i$ is the time derivative of the electron fraction due to electron captures on the $i$th
nuclear species, $\alpha$ accounts for the general relativistic time dilation, $N_a$ is Avogadro's constant,
$\rho$ is the density, $\epsilon_k$ is the energy of the $k$th energy bin, $\Delta \epsilon_k$ is the $k$th energy
bin width, $\eta_i$ is the emissivity of species $i$ and $1-\frac{E_k}{B_k}$ is the neutrino
blocking factor that accounts for re-absorption as
collapse approaches weak equilibrium. Along with a hydrodynamical correction due to advection
of electrons into the central zone, the time integral of Eq.~\ref{eq:yedot} added
for all nuclei reproduces the full time dependent $Y_e$ profile of the central zone during
collapse, indicating that electron captures on heavy nuclei singularly drive the deleptonization
of the central zone.

With this method, the deleptonization
history due to each nucleus can be individually investigated.
At these densities and temperatures, NSE diversifies
the abundant nuclei, ensuring that no single nucleus dominates the deleptonization.
There are, however, subsets of nuclei that contribute more than others
to the reduction of $Y_e$. A nuclear-mass dependence can be studied by binning the
the contribution to $\vert \dot Y_e \vert$ from each nuclide into nuclear mass bins
and tracking the evolution of each region up to neutrino trapping.
Figure~\ref{fig:yedot}a plots the deleptonization rate in the
core for different nuclear mass bins, as the central $Y_e$ progresses from its
progenitor value to its value when weak equilibrium is achieved, just prior to bounce.
Early on, before the collapse becomes strongly dynamical, nuclei in both the mass
range 25\textless A\textless 65 ($sd$+$pf$-shell) and those in the
65\textless A\textless 105 ($pfg$/$sdg$-shell) comprise the main component of
the deleptonization. However, during the strongest
push toward neutron-rich conditions, where $Y_e$ rapidly changes from $\sim$0.41 to
$\sim$0.28, nuclei with mass A \textgreater 65 dominate the evolution as seen by the
red and light blue curves in Figure~\ref{fig:yedot}a. Unfortunately, the most precise
electron-capture rate estimates fall below this region and instead, the rates
are set primarily by the approximation of Eq.~\ref{eq:ec}.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=1. \columnwidth]{yedot_zoom.pdf}
 \caption{ (a) The contribution of nuclear electron capture to the change of the
 matter electron-fraction with time. The contours are the binned sums of
 $\vert \dot Y_e \vert$ for each species in several mass regions.
 For reference, the central density at $t-t_b$ = -20, -10, -5, -2, and -1 ms
 is $1.41\cdot 10^{11}$, $4.06\cdot 10^{11}$, $1.42\cdot10^{12}$, $8.49\cdot 10^{12}$,
 $3.30\cdot 10^{13}$ g cm$^{-3}$ respectively.
 (b) Top 500 electron capturing nuclei with the largest absolute change to the electron
 fraction up to neutrino trapping. The color scale indicates
 $\vert \dot Y_e \vert$ integrated up to the trapping time, occurring when
 $\rho_c \sim 2\cdot 10^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$, such that the total electron-fraction
 at this point is equal to
 its initial value less the sum of $\Delta Y_e$, the plotted quantity, over all nuclides.
 Calculations are based on the s15WW95+SFHo reference simulation. The rectangular outline indicates
 the size of the sampling region used in the statistical resampling study, and
 also the set of nuclei which exhibited the largest changes to the simulations
 when excluded from the electron-capture calculations.}
 \label{fig:yedot}
\end{figure}

It is also useful to understand the specific nuclei that have the largest
integrated contribution to core deleptonization up to neutrino trapping.
In panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:yedot} we plot the 500 nuclei with
the largest integrated $\vert \dot Y_e\vert$ from $t=0$ to the trapping
time---when densities are in excess of $2\cdot10^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$. This
reveals the channel through which the bulk of electron captures
operate. The central electron-fraction at the trapping density is reproduced
by subtracting the sum of this quantity over all nuclear species from the initial
electron-fraction,
\begin{align}
Y_e(t=t_\textrm{trapping}) \simeq Y_e(t=0) - \sum\limits_i \Delta Y_e^i,
\end{align}
where $\Delta Y_e^i$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:yedot}b, and the component of
$Y_e$ due to advection of electrons into the central zone (otherwise making this
relation exact) is left out for simplicity.
Within the $pfg$ and $sdg$-shells we find that primary contributors to the
deleptonization phase of collapse are neutron rich nuclei near the
N=50 and N=82 closed neutron shells.

To confirm these results, we also gauge the sensitivity of the collapse phase to localized
groups of nuclei by employing a statistical resampling technique where sets
of nuclei are removed from the simulation. This method
is based on well known statistical resampling methods such as
bootstrap and jackknife resampling \citep{Wu1986}.
Specifically, a rectangular region centered on a nucleus and spanning all
nuclei within $\pm 3$ isobars and $\pm 5$ isobaric chains is removed from the
calculation of the electron-capture neutrino emissivity. An example of such a
removed region is drawn on Figure~\ref{fig:yedot}b. This technique
is employed in 48 simulations with resampling performed uniformly across the
nuclear chart. Using this technique we find the simulations are most sensitive to
nuclei in the mass range 74-84 with $Z/A$ ($=Y_e$) between 0.36-0.44, corresponding
to nuclei near $\nuc{78}{Ni}$, $\nuc{79}{Cu}$, and $\nuc{79}{Zn}$.
These results agree with the $\dot Y_e$ calculations performed
above, and indicate that species near the N=50 magic number have the largest
contribution in magnitude to the change in the electron fraction overall.
The impact of removing these species from the simulation
corresponded to a change of inner-core mass at bounce of $\gtrsim$ 10\%,
whereas resampling in other regions resulted in variations
of only a few percent.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=.7]{ylep_sys_scale.pdf}
 \caption{ Projection of the (trapped) lepton fraction at
 $\rho_c = 4\cdot 10^{12}$\, g\,cm$^{-3}$
 as a function of the electron-capture rate scaling factor
 for progenitor+EOS reference simulation. In all
 the cases the lepton fraction begins to increase if the
 capture rate becomes too high because of a dramatic
 increase in the electron neutrino absorption cross
 section. The asymmetry seen here indicates that those
 quantities which depend on $Y_{l/e}$ are likely to be more
 sensitive to a reduction of the electron-capture rates
 due to a systematic overestimate in the base rates, than they are to
 an increase due to an underestimate.}
 \label{fig:ylepscale}
\end{figure}

The electron-capture rates for these
nuclides rely entirely on the approximation of Eqs.~\ref{eq:ec} and~\ref{eq:nu}, which
were fit originally to rates of lower-mass mid-shell nuclei near stability.
Therefore, in the region indicated by the above two studies, the approximation is
largely uncertain and may be systematically off by a significant amount. For instance,
these estimates do not account for nuclear structure effects that may occur near the
N=50 closed neutron shell. Depending on the nuclear configurations,
thermal excitations, and increasing dependence on forbidden transitions,
Pauli blocking may considerably reduce the electron-capture rates in this area.
Given that the change of inner-core mass at bounce was largest when the
rates of these nuclides were decreased to zero as compared to any other set,
and that without any evaluative measurements the uncertainties in these rates remain large,
experimental and theoretical work should focus here. Any substantial changes to the
electron-capture rate estimates for these nuclei will likely have a relatively large
impact on simulation predictions for the PNS formation, and will therefore help to
constrain important collapse and pre-explosion phase quantities.

\subsection{Systematic variations}
\label{Systematic}
To study the strongest impact of variations in the electron-capture rates, we
perform simulations in which the rate for each A\textgreater 4 nuclide is systematically
scaled by factors of 10, 4, 2, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1. In this way, the
structure of the rates as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:approx} is preserved
(the lower panel of residuals is unaffected), but the distribution of rates is
shifted to larger or smaller values depending on the scaling factor.
Systematic shifts of the rates emphasize the role of electron capture
as a regulator for entropy and temperature in the simulations. By increasing the rates,
more neutrinos are emitted and escape during the initial stages of collapse, thereby
increasing the evaporative neutrino-cooling.
Furthermore, because the dominant source of matter pressure is electron degeneracy,
increased electron-capture rates accelerate the collapse. This impacts the matter
profiles outside the shock in the early post-bounce phase.
Decreasing the rates has the opposite effect, the entropy, temperature, and electron fraction
of the core are significantly higher because less cooling takes place.

The evolution prior to and right at $\rho_c = 2\cdot 10^{12}$\, g\,cm$^{-3}$
(which is the density that defines neutrino trapping) is what sets the
final value of the trapped lepton and electron fractions, which are
important due to their direct impact on the formation of the PNS.
For all the reference simulations we observe a minimum in the trapped
lepton fraction occurring for a systematic scaling factor of approximately four.
The minimum that forms can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:ylepscale}.
Scaling by ten slightly reverses the downward trend, and
increases the trapped lepton-fraction from its minimum value. This behavior is the result of
electron-neutrino capture on heavy nuclei becoming the primary source of opacity,
exceeding what is typical as a result of coherent $\nu_e$-scattering. When the rates
have been enhanced by a factor of ten, the ratio of the absorption and scattering
opacities, $\kappa_a / \kappa_s$, surpasses unity already by central densities of
$3\cdot 10^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and $\kappa_a\sim 4\kappa_s$ by the time
$\rho_c = 10^{12}$g cm$^{-3}$. Absorption cross sections
are then large enough to trigger an early onset of neutrino trapping at densities
lower than what is found for the reference rates. The consequence is that electron capture
has a smaller window of deleptonization, leading ultimately
to a higher $Y_l$ overall.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=.55]{y_rho.pdf}
 \caption{ Comparison of the central electron,
 electron-neutrino (left) and lepton (right)
 fractions in which the nuclear electron-capture
 rate for every species has been scaled by factors shown in
 the legend. Warmer colors indicate a higher overall electron
 capture rate, and cooler colors indicate a lower rate. The
 dashed black line indicates the reference s15WW95+SFHo simulation.}
 \label{fig:yrho}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{hydro_all.pdf}
 \caption{ The electron fraction, entropy, density, and velocity as a function of
  enclosed mass at four times during a core-collapse simulation, spanning 6 ms
  around bounce, including the collapse phase just after the onset of neutrino trapping
  (a), core bounce (b), and 1 ms (c) and 5 ms (d) after bounce during which the shock has
  begun its outward trajectory. The reference
  simulation (s15WW95+SFHo) is shown in dashed black. Simulations shown in color have
  electron-capture rates scaled systematically for all species by factors of
  10, 4, 2, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1. Core bounce ($t-t_b = 0$) shown in panel (b) is
  defined as when the entropy at the shock front exceeds 3.0 k$_b$/baryon.}
 \label{fig:hydro_mass}
\end{figure*}

The range of electron fractions near core bounce is commensurate with the
range of trapped lepton-fractions so far described, see Figure~\ref{fig:yrho}.
As mentioned above, variations of $Y_e$ (and $Y_l$) on this level are of
importance due to its direct impact on the formation of the PNS and the supernova shock.
Electron fraction, entropy, density and velocity profiles are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:hydro_mass} for s15WW95+SFHo at -1, 0, 1, and 5 milliseconds
relative to bounce. Of particular interest,
we find that the mass of the forming PNS inner-core at bounce, seen as the mass behind the
steep velocity gradient in panel (b), varies on the order of $\sim$0.1 $M_\odot$,
and up to $\sim$0.2 $M_\odot$ five milliseconds after bounce. The asymmetry observed in
the trapped-lepton fraction, where scaling the rates by 0.1 had a more dramatic effect than
scaling by 10, translates directly to the variation of the inner-core mass at bounce
(+16/-4\,\% from the reference).
The result we find is that the forming PNS has a lower bound on the inner-core mass at
bounce over the range of electron-capture rates explored.
Because the rates are already high, and therefore the absorption
opacity is already almost comparable to the scattering opacity, the range of
inner-core mass at bounce comes mainly from simulations with decreased rates
relative to the base simulation.

In addition to the direct impact on core dynamics and structure, the neutrino emission
at bounce is found to be very sensitive to these variations.
Figure~\ref{fig:nulum} shows the neutrino luminosity 500 km
from the center for the different neutrino species as a function of time.
Prior to bounce the $\nu_e$-luminosity begins to rise from
electron captures on bound protons in nuclei,
but is quickly regulated by neutrino trapping, causing a down
turn in the luminosity. During this time the core is very sensitivite to the
nuclear electron-capture rates as the entropy is low enough that heavy nuclei dominate
the available mass. Scaling the rates for each nucleus using the same systematic factors
results in a 40\% variation of the $\nu_e$-luminosity before bounce.
During bounce, the electron-neutrino burst---seen as the peak luminosity in the left panel of
Figure~\ref{fig:nulum}---is powered primarily by electron capture on free protons. The
core-bounce and shock liberates nucleons from their bound states and the entropy rises causing
a significant increase in the nucleon and light particle abundances.
That said, while the electron-capture rate on free protons, $\lambda_p^{\mathrm{EC}}$,
is not adjusted in these simulations, a range of $\pm$20\% relative to the reference peak
$\nu_e$-luminosity is observed.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[scale=.5]{nuelum.pdf}
 \caption{ The neutrino luminosity as measured at a radius of 500 km as a
  function of time after bounce in our s15WW95+SFHo
  simulation set. Electron-capture rate
  scaling factors are shown in the legend, where contours with
  warmer colors have higher rates, and cooler colors have lower
  rates. While the peak electron-neutrino
  luminosity is considered particularly stable across core-collapse
  simulations, it varies significantly with
  variations of the electron-capture rates on medium-heavy
  nuclei. When the rates are at their lowest ($\times$0.1 case), the shock reaches
  the neutrinosphere more quickly than in the other simulations.
  This results in a larger luminosity in the peak electron-neutrino burst
  because more $\nu_e$s are able stream out of the core at early times.
  The opposite is true when the rates are higher, the neutrinosphere
  and shock converge much more slowly, and so the neutrinos spend more
  time diffusing out of the inner core, reducing the peak luminosity
  but distributing it out to later times.}
 \label{fig:nulum}
\end{figure}

We find that these dramatic variations of the peak electron neutrino luminosity
are a result of alterations to the neutrinosphere and shock convergence-timescale.
Specifically, when electron captures on nuclei are weaker (scaling by 0.1), the
inner-core mass that forms at bounce is significantly larger.
This results in more kinetic energy transferred to the shock, allowing it to sweep up
mass more quickly. In Figure~\ref{fig:hydro_mass} this
can be seen by the broadening of the distribution of shock locations in mass
between the different
simulations in the velocity plot 5 ms after bounce (bottom-right) as compared to $t-t_b$ = 0.
Also, with a weaker overall rate the opacity will be lower, allowing the
neutrinosphere to move in to lower radii more quickly. The combination of these effects
result in the shock and neutrinosphere radii converging earlier for the simulations
with lower electron-capture rates, and later for simulations with higher rates,
up to a difference on the order of 3.5 ms. Thus, electron capture on protons
liberated by the shock produce neutrinos that are able to reach the neutrinosphere
earlier and freely stream away, contributing to a larger $\nu_e$ peak luminosity
when the nuclear electron capture rate is systematically lower. On the other hand,
when the nuclear electron capture rate is high, the emitted neutrinos diffuse more
slowly through the core, and reach the neutrinosphere at later times, thus
strongly quenching the peak luminosity but spreading out the emission to later
times. Due to the high luminosity of the electron-neutrino burst near the time of bounce,
it is a candidate for detection from a galactic core-collapse supernovae
in Earth-based detectors sensitive to electron neutrinos, e.g.
those with a detector volume composed of liquid Argon.
And while such measurements are not presently of high
enough precision to resolve each variation seen here, they may indicate the
total amount of electron capture occurring at core bounce.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=1. \columnwidth]{ranges.pdf}
 \caption{ The full range of sensitivity of the PNS inner-core mass, central entropy,
 and central temperature at bounce as well as the peak $\nu_e$-luminosity, the peak average
 $\nu_e$ energy, and the average $\nu_e$ energy prior to neutrino trapping, owing to
 variations of the progenitor model and electron-capture rates. Thirty two progenitors
 were utilized from the WH07 model set of \citet{WOOSLEY2007} for producing the progenitor
 bars (red) in the figure. Each bar of the electron-capture rate variations derives from
 simulations where the rates have been systematically scaled by factors of 10, 4, 2, 0.5, 0.25,
 and 0.1. The horizontal tick represents the value of the reference simulation for the
 tested Progenitor + EOS combination. The window ranges are chosen so that the progenitor
 sensitivity bars are of equal size across each of the plotted parameters.
 }
 \label{fig:sysranges}
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Progenitor model sensitivity}
\label{progenitors}
In order to evaluate the significance of the electron-capture systematic sensitivity studies
described so far, we have chosen to test against a study of the progenitor dependence
of the core-collapse phase. Drawing from the larger set of progenitors from which
the reference progenitors of the electron-capture study belong, the 2007
non-rotating solar-metallicity single-star model set from the stellar evolution code
KEPLER~\citep{WOOSLEY2007} was utilized. This model set contains the presupernova configuration of
32 stars ranging in zero-age-main-sequence (ZAMS) mass from 12 $M_\odot$ to 120
$M_\odot$-- s12WH07 and s120WH07 respectively.
Simulations of these progenitors exhibit a $\sim$3.5\% range of trapped lepton-fraction (0.288 - 0.298),
a $\sim$4\% range of inner-core mass at bounce (0.473\,--\,0.491$M_\odot$), and a
$\sim$9\% range of electron-neutrino peak luminosity ($5.19-5.65\cdot 10^{53}$ erg s$^{-1}$)
during the neutrino flash occurring just after core bounce.

Figure~\ref{fig:sysranges} compares the progenitor model and electron-capture rate
dependence of several structural and neutrino quantities during collapse.
The range of inner-core mass and peak $\nu_e$ luminosity seen from
employing the WH07 progenitor model set are each approximately a
factor of 5 smaller than the ranges seen from varying the
electron-capture rates across all progenitor+EOS references.
On the other hand, the range of central
entropies and temperatures at bounce are comparable between the two
sensitivity studies. The $\nu_e$ average energies
just prior to neutrino trapping and during the deleptonization burst
are also compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:sysranges}. The neutrinos emitted
during the luminous burst just following core bounce are of
higher energy than those emitted earlier because they arise primarily
from electron capture on free protons. They also decouple from the core
at a much hotter and denser neutrinosphere than prior to bounce, yielding
higher energy neutrinos. In both of the sensitivity studies, variations of
the electron-capture rates and of the initial stellar models, we find that the
range of average neutrino energy during peak emission is comparable
($\approx \pm$0.5 MeV).

While captures on free protons contribute only marginally to deleptonization in the central zone,
further out in the iron core, where the densities are lower (and $Y_e$'s are
higher), electron captures on protons contribute to the deleptonization, especially in
cases where we suppress electron captures on nuclei. The capture of
electrons on these free protons produces neutrinos of a higher average energy, commensurate with the large
spread seen in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sysranges} (which is taken when the central density is
$3\times10^{11}\,$g\,cm$^{-3}$, but present from the onset of collapse). Another
contribution to the energy spread is the systematic shift of electron captures to more neutron
rich nuclei as the electron-capture rates are increased and the matter becomes more neutron rich.
These neutron-rich nuclei have more negative Q-values, yielding lower energy neutrino emission.
Both of these effects result in a dispersion of average neutrino energies early on
that is several factors larger than what is seen in the progenitor simulations.

Finally, we note that while the peak luminosity is only weakly dependent on the
progenitor model, the post-bounce pre-explosion luminosity of all six neutrino species
have strong progenitor dependences~\citep{OConnor2013}, and we find these pre-explosion luminosities
are much less sensitive to the nuclear electron-capture rates comparatively--see panel (b) of
Figure~\ref{fig:nulum}. The diverging of the luminosities seen at $t-t_b$ = 120 ms
is due only to the difference in collapse times between the simulations
which carries over to the evolution of the mass accretion rate after bounce.

\subsection{Monte-Carlo variations}
In addition to the possibility of systematic errors in the electron-capture rates,
we also explore the effect of statistically distributed variations. Such an investigation
is of great importance if the effect of an approximation such as Eq.~\ref{eq:ec}
is to be understood.
The main flaw in a continuous function for rate estimation across
many nuclear species is the loss of structure, which would otherwise serve to
statistically distribute the rates on a reaction by reaction basis (see Fig~\ref{fig:approx}).
To study this effect we performed a Monte-Carlo (MC) variation of the electron-capture rates.
Using an analytic description of the electron-capture rate distribtutions,
such as a Gaussian or Poisson distribution, is likely to be inaccurate.
Instead, we MC adjust the approximate rate
for each species by adding to its log$_{10}(\lambda_{\mathrm{EC}})$
a value randomly chosen from a distribution created from the residuals of the tabulated
rates and the approximate rates, i.e.
\begin{align}
\textrm{log}_{10}(\lambda_{\mathrm{EC}}^{i,\textrm{table}}) -
\textrm{log}_{10}(\lambda_{\mathrm{EC}}^{i,\textrm{Eq.1}})
\end{align}
where $i$ is an index running over all the tabulated reactions.

In constructing this distribution, it is important also to preserve the Q-value dependence
of the residuals that can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:approx}b. We do this by seperating the
residual distribution into subsets so that the reaction-rate residuals in each subset have
similar Q-values. To do so we have chosen a Q-value binning of 2.5\,MeV,
but have also tested binnings of
5.0\,MeV and 10.0\,MeV which resolve the Q-dependence less, but have more counts
per bin from which to sample. With this method we
MC generate pseudo electron-capture rates that retain the Q-value dependence of Eq.~\ref{eq:ec},
but statistically distribute the approximate rate according to the variance of the
rates calculated in the shell-model. Seven simulations for
each binning were performed.

\begin{figure}
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width= 1. \columnwidth]{ylep_stat.pdf}
 \caption{ Lepton fraction band as a function
 of central density for the Monte Carlo (MC) described in the text. The band represents
 data points from seven MC simulations based on the s15WW95+SFHo reference,
 where the band width represents the min to max range of $Y_l$.
 The rates are varied by drawing from the Q-value dependent residual function
 shown in Figure~\ref{fig:approx} after binning it into 2.5 MeV
 energy bins. This binning was chosen as it best tracks the Q-value dependence of
 the residual distribution.
 }
 \label{fig:ylep_stat}
\end{figure}

As mentioned before, at low densities the electron-capture rate depends strongly
on the energy levels of the initial and final nuclides because the electron chemical
potential is comparable to the excitation energies of the allowed Gamow-Teller transitions.
As the electron chemical potential increases, it encompasses a larger range
of excitation energies which results in the electron-capture rate becoming
sensitive primarily to the total strength.
In the low-density case of Figure~\ref{fig:approx}a the approximation of Eq.~\ref{eq:ec} while appearing to
decently reproduce the mean of the shell-model rates, actually has a mean approximately a factor
of two lower than the tabulated rates. As the density increases, this difference
between the mean electron-capture rate estimated by the approximation and the shell-model
rates decrease. Thus, the approximation better reproduces the mean rate in the high density case
of Figure~\ref{fig:approx}a. Because our MC simulations
are based on residual distributions of the tabulated rates and the approximation, the
average rate produced in each MC trial also has this bias.

In Figure~\ref{fig:ylep_stat} we plot the min-to-max band representing the
range of lepton fraction observed from all of the MC simulations. The band drawn corresponds to a
2.5 MeV binning of the residual distributions from which the MC sampling was performed.
For the reasons just described, the band has lower electron and lepton fractions than
the reference at low densities, but becomes more statistically distributed around the reference at
higher densities, near 5$\cdot$10$^{11}$g cm$^{-3}$.
The lepton fraction band width varies from about a half percent initially,
to its largest value of $\sim$2.5\% just before neutrino trapping, and then decreases
back to $\sim$1.5\% before bounce. Altogether, we observe no significant impact on the core
dynamics or the neutrino transport and therefore conclude that any statistically distributed
scatter in the estimations of the electron-capture rates, such as those seen in Figure~\ref{fig:approx},
will likely not impact the models.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
Nuclear electron capture has long been understood to play an important role in
the dynamics of core-collapse supernovae and large efforts have been undertaken to produce
reliable estimates of electron-capture rates for astrophysical contexts.
Although significant progress has been made in benchmarking theoretical electron-capture
rates by comparison with charge-exchange experiments (especially using shell-model calculations)
\citep{Cole2012}, large uncertainties remain for neutron-rich nuclei and nuclei beyond A=65.
Furthermore, sophisticated shell-model estimates for electron-capture rates exist
only for a small subset of the large number of nuclei that contribute strongly. In this work
we explore the implications of uncertainties in the electron-capture rate estimates for
the core-collapse and early post-bounce phases of fully self consistent, general relativistic,
core-collapse supernova simulations with comprehensive neutrino transport.

\subsection{Most important nuclei}
For the reference
simulation we calculate the contribution of each nucleus to core deleptonization and also perform a
statistical resampling study, both of which identify those species whose rate should be
known most precisely due to their significance in the simulations. With the given set of electron
capture rates---from shell-model estimates to the approximate estimates of
Eqs.~\ref{eq:ec} and~\ref{eq:nu}---we find that the simulations are most sensitive
to neutron rich nuclei in the upper $pf$ and $pfg$/$sdg$-shells.

Specifically, in these simulations nuclei near the A$\sim$80, N$\sim$50 closed neutron shell
contribute the bulk of core deleptonization, and when removed from the simulations result in
noticeable changes to the protoneutron star formation, with a significantly larger impact than
when any other group of nuclei are removed. However, because sophisticated estimates from
nuclear theory are not available for individual nuclei in this region, the electron-capture rates for
these species have been accounted for in the past via simple averaging techniques and in
this work via an approximation that has been fit to the LMP rate set. While this approximation
reasonably reproduces the average electron capture rate for $sd$ and $pf$ shell nuclei near
stability, rates for heavier neutron-rich nuclides will likely diverge from what is
predicted by this parameterization.

\subsection{Impact of uncertainties}
We evaluate the impact such uncertainties may have by varying
the electron-capture rates for more than 6000 nuclei statistically, about the approximate
prediction, and also systematically. On one hand,
we find that statistical variations of electron-capture rates effect the overall dynamics and
neutrino emission only weakly, producing marginal changes to the simulations. These findings
indicate that the lack of structural variation that distributes the rate estimates from
one species to the next is not crucial to the simulations.

On the other hand, the average
electron capture rate across a region of nuclei strongly determines the overall impact of
those constituent nuclei. By systematically varying the electron-capture rates by factors
between 10 and 0.1 we observe dramatic variations in the inner-core mass (+16/-4\,\%) and the
electron-neutrino luminosity ($\pm$ 20\%) at and near bounce, respectively.
Comparing with 32 simulations utilizing different
progenitor models, we find that this range of inner-core mass and peak neutrino-luminosity
is 5 times as large as that seen when varying the progenitor models.

We also find that the nuclear electron-capture rates
are already large enough in the reference simulations that increasing them beyond their base
values has a considerably smaller effect than decreasing them. This has compelling
implications. Rates for A$\sim$80 nuclei near the N=50 shell gap, which have been shown in this work to
be the primary contributors to the overall impact of electron captures during core collapse,
may be overestimated by Eq.~\ref{eq:ec} due to Fermi-blocking at the closed neutron shell.
Combined with a greater overall sensitivity to the systematic decrease in electron-capture rates,
changes to the collapse and early post-bounce phases of the simulations may be as significant
as those seen in this study if the current rates of these nuclei are found to be overestimated.

\subsection{Goals for future studies}
For these reasons, it is important that experimental and theoretical efforts be aimed at nuclei
which span the region on the chart of isotopes between stability and the neutron drip-line in
both the $pf$ and $pfg/sdg$ model spaces, and further expand on the work that has been carried out for
(near-)stable nuclei in the $pf$-shell. Since data from (n,p)-type charge-exchange experiments
for nuclei in the $pfg/sdg$-shell and for neutron-rich nuclei in the $pf$ and $pfg/sdg$-shell are scarce,
new experiments are required to obtain a sufficient set of data to benchmark current and future
theoretical estimates. To this end, presently feasible  experiments on neutron-rich nuclei at and
near stability with 60\textless A\textless 120  should add to
the few cases that have been measured in this region.
With the higher beam intensities that will be available at next generation rare isotope
facilities, future experimental programs should focus on the neutron-rich component of the
primary electron-capture channel shown in Figure~\ref{fig:yedot}b. In particular, investigation
of nuclei in the A$\sim$80 and N$\sim$50 region should take precedence, as changes to their electron-capture
rates will significantly constrain the core-collapse dependence on nuclear electron-capture.

\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Gabriel Mart\'{i}nez-Pinedo and Raph Hix for valuable
discussions, as well as the underlying rate tables from which much of this work
was based. We would also like to thank Christian Ott for his support. CS would like to
thank CITA for their hospitality and support while carrying out a portion of this research.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No.
PHY-1430152 (JINA Center for the Evolution of the Elements) and No. PHY-1102511, by the
Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration under award number DE- NA0000979,
and by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant 51344.001-A awarded by the Space Telescope
Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555,.
Some computations were performed on the Zwicky cluster at Caltech, which is supported by the
Sherman Fairchild Foundation and by NSF award PHY-0960291.


\subsection*{Introduction}
 Great interest has been devoted to  theoretical and experimental studies of  various low-dimensional
 systems such as tunnel junctions, quantum point contacts (QPC), quantum nanowires, and  2D
  electron gas based nanostructures,  just to name a few. These systems show a large variety
  of fascinating quantum-mechanical effects  on the macroscopic scale, e.g. the weak localization
   \cite{Heinzel,Dittrich}, the quantum Hall effect \cite{QH}, the macroscopic quantum tunnelling
   \cite{Devoret}, the conductance quantization in QPCs \cite{Heinzel,QH,Beenakker} etc.

The quantum-mechanical dynamics of quasiparticles and the
electronic transport become even
  more complex and intriguing when
 \emph{bound states} are present in such systems.
  Indeed, it was shown in Ref. \cite{ARinQPC1,ARinQPC2} that the bound states manifest
  themselves by narrow drops (the anti-resonance) in the gate voltage dependent conductance
  of QPCs. It is well known also that the bound states naturally arising on the boundaries
  of various systems such as graphene nanoribbons \cite{Castro},  nanowires \cite{Charlier,Mourik},
  2D electron gas under magnetic field, greatly influence the transport properties.

Specific magnetic field dependent bound states can be artificially
created if a lateral junction (barrier) is fabricated inside of a
2D electron gas subject to an externally applied magnetic field
(see Fig. 1) \cite{exp1,kang,twin,barrier,grapheneLat}.  These
highly localized
 states are formed due to the quantum-mechanical  interference of magnetic edge states occurring
 on the both sides of the barrier.   The localization length
 in the transverse direction $x$ is
of the order of the magnetic
length $\ell_c~\simeq~\sqrt{\hbar c/(eH)}$ in the regime of a strong externally applied
magnetic field, $H$.

However, in the longitudinal direction $y$ these states show
delocalized behavior, and the dynamics of electrons is
characterized by the component of electron momentum $p_y$. Thus,
in such a 1D channel the  energy  spectrum of electrons,
$\epsilon_n(p_y)$, contains many bands, and it is shown for two
lowest bands in Fig. 2A. In the absence of quantum tunnelling
across the junction the left-right symmetry of the electron states
results in a large number of degenerate states in the electronic
spectrum (see Fig. 2A, dashed line). The quantum tunnelling
provides the lifting of the degeneracy, and the energy spectrum
shows a complex structure  with bands and gaps (see Fig. 2A, solid
line). Notice here that in the region of a rather small magnetic
field such a spectrum was calculated in Ref. \cite{twin,barrier},
and in the region of a strong magnetic field, i.e in the quantum
Hall regime, it was obtained in Ref. \cite{kang}. Since this
spectrum having an origin in the coherent quantum-interference
phenomenon,  is extremely sensitive to various interacting
effects, the renormalization of the above-mentioned spectrum  due
to the Coulomb interaction and /or the impurities has been
theoretically studied in papers
\cite{Mitra,Kollar,Nonoyama,Kim,Aranzana}.

  \begin{figure}

 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{kadigrobov_fig1.eps}}

 \caption{\textbf{The  point contact with a lateral junction in the quantum Hall regime.}
 A scattering process (propagation and reflection) of magnetic edge states on the electron
  states localized on the lateral junction, is schematically shown.}

 \label{edgestates}
 \end{figure}

The bands and gaps in the energy spectrum of electronic states
bounded to the junction, directly manifest themselves  in  a large
amount of interesting effects as the transport in the longitudinal
direction is studied. Indeed, the giant oscillations of the
longitudinal conductance with the gate voltage, strongly nonlinear
current-voltage
 characteristics and coherent Bloch oscillations under a weak
 electric fields, have been
 predicted and theoretically studied \cite{twin,barrier}.

It is  naturally to suppose that the above-mentioned  unique
electronic spectrum can be probed by the electric current flowing
\emph{across } a lateral junction. In this article we show that the
bands and gaps in the quasiparticle spectrum of the states bounded
to a lateral junction,
 manifest themselves in  giant oscillations of the conductance
 $G_x$ as the applied magnetic
  field or dc voltage are varied. The origin of these oscillations is
  in the magnetic edge
  states transmission coefficient $D(E)$ which shows  peaks and drops as
  the electron energy is tuned.

Qualitatively, the quantum-mechanical dynamics of electrons in a
strong magnetic field and in the presence of a lateral junction
can be considered as following: the lateral junction serves as a
tunable quantum-mechanical scatterer for  propagating edge states
(see Fig. 1). E.g., the edge state $1$ propagating from the left
lead along the lower boundary is scattered by the barrier into the
edge state $2$ going to the right lead,  and into the edge state
$3$ which reflects from the barrier to the left lead along the
upper boundary. The highest probability of such reflection
 occurs if the propagation of electrons \emph{along} the junction is allowed. It takes place if
 the electron energy $ E$ is inside of the energy bands of bound states. In this case the
 transmission coefficient $D(E)$ shows minimal values. As the energy of electrons is tuned to
 gaps in the spectrum of the bound states, the edge states propagation along the junction  is
 forbidden, and a great enhancement of $D(E)$ is obtained. These oscillations of $D(E)$ transform
 in  giant oscillations of $G_x$ under variation of
 the  magnetic field or the dc voltage. Such oscillations of
 $G_x$  have been verified experimentally in  the Ref. \cite{kang} but
 the quantitative analysis has  not been  done. Notice here,
 that in the Ref.\cite{Takagaki}, the electron current flowing perpendicular to
the lateral junction in a 2D electron gas under a strong magnetic
filed was numerically calculated, and similar oscillations of the
conductance were obtained.

Below we present a complete analytical solution of the transverse
transport of electrons in such a system that allows to clarify
both qualitatively and quantitatively experimental features
\cite{kang} such as  the small value of the observed conductance
in comparison to the expected Landauer conductance, the
oscillations of the conductance as a function of the magnetic
field or voltage, the dependence of the conductance on the lateral
size of the system, etc. Our analysis based on the
quantum-mechanical scattering of propagating magnetic edge states
on the bound states is in a good accord with both the qualitative
scenario and experimental observations.

Let us consider a QPC fabricated in a two-dimensional electron gas
in the presence of a lateral junction and subject to an externally
applied magnetic field. The magnetic field $H$ is perpendicular to the QPC plane.
The QPC is characterized by the coordinate-dependent electrostatic potential
$\widetilde V (x, y)=\frac{m \omega_1^2}{2}y^2 + V (x)$,
where  the last term describes the potential barrier between two
parts of the electron gas. The parameter $\omega_1$ characterizes
the curvature of the confinement potential of the QPC, $m$ is the
electron effective mass.

Quantum dynamics of electrons in the QPC with the lateral junction is
described by the wave function $\Psi(x,y)$ satisfying
the two-dimensional Schr\"odinger equation:

\begin{eqnarray}
 &-&\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m} \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial x^2}+
 \Big[\frac{1}{2 m}\big(-i \hbar \frac{\partial }{\partial y}-
 \frac{e H x}{c}\big)^2 \nonumber \\
 &+&\frac{m \omega_1^2}{2}y^2 + V (x)-E\Big]\Psi =0,
\label{Shcroedinger}
\end{eqnarray}
where the Landau  gauge, i.e. the vector-potential  ${\bf A} =
(0,Hx,0)$, is used. Here, the axis $y$ is parallel to the barrier
and the $x$-axis is directed along the QPC (see Fig. 1).
Introducing the dimensionless variables, $\xi=x/\ell_c$ and
$\varepsilon = E/(\hbar \omega_c)$ (the $\omega_c$ is the
cyclotron frequency), we write the total wave function $\Psi$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
 \Psi(\xi,y)= \int_{-\infty}^\infty Q(p_y,\xi)\exp\{i\frac{ p_y y }{\hbar}\}d p_y, \nonumber \\
 Q(p_y,\xi)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} R_n(p_y)\varphi_{n,p_y}(\xi)
\label{Fourier}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the partial wave functions $\varphi_{n,p_y}(\xi)$ describe  the magnetic field dependent electron states bounded to the lateral junction and satisfy to the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
  \frac{\partial^2 \varphi_{n,p_y}}{\partial \xi^2}-
  \Big[\Big(\frac{p_y \ell_c}{\hbar} -\xi \Big)^2+
 \nu (\xi)-2 \varepsilon_{n}(p_y) \Big]\varphi_{n,p_y}(\xi) =0
\label{Shcroedinger2}
\end{eqnarray}
with the boundary conditions  being $\varphi_{n,p_y}(\xi)
\rightarrow 0$ at $\xi \rightarrow \pm \infty$. Here, the
dimensionless potential of the junction is $\nu (\xi) = 2m V(\xi
l_c) \ell_c^2/\hbar^2$. These bound states are formed from the
edge states propagating along the barrier
 $\phi_{n,p_y}^{(l)}(\xi)$ ($\phi_{n,p_y}^{(r)}(\xi)$) on the left (right) parts of
the lateral junction. In the quantum Hall regime as $E~\simeq~\hbar \omega_c$ these bound
 states decay in the transverse direction  on the distance $\ell_c$. In the absence of
 quantum tunneling the electronic spectrum contains a large amount of degenerate states. The quantum-mechanical interference between  left and right edge states results in a lifting of this degeneracy, and
a peculiar one-dimensional spectrum $\varepsilon_n(p_y)$ with an
alternating  sequence of narrow energy bands $\sim
\sqrt{1-|t|^2}\; \hbar \omega_c$ and energy gaps,
\cite{twin,kang,barrier} $\Delta_n \sim |t|\;\hbar \omega_c$,
where $|t|^2$ is the barrier transparency (see Fig. 2A).

The transverse electronic transport is determined by the  partial wave
functions $R_n (p_y)$ which, in turn, are entangled with the bound
states. Next, we explicitly consider this quantum entanglement in
the case that the energy of electrons is in the vicinity of the
first "crossing point". This crossing point occurs at  $p_y = 0$,
and the energy $\epsilon_0=3/2$ (in dimensionless units).

The generic total quantum-mechanical state is presented as a
superposition of basis functions, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_0(p_y,\xi)=C_1(\varepsilon)R^{(l)}_0 (p_y)\phi^{(l)}_{0, p_y}(\xi)
 +C_2(\varepsilon)R^{(r)}_0(p_y)\phi^{(r)}_{0, p_y}(\xi)
\label{Superposition}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $R^{(l,r)}_0 = R_0 \pm R_1$ are the functions normalized to
the unit flux density, the energy dependent coefficients
$C_1(\varepsilon)$ and $C_2(\varepsilon)$ determine the
transmission coefficient $D(E)$ and, therefore, the electronic
transport.

The partial wave functions $R_0^{(l,r)}(p_y)$ are satisfied to the
following set of coupled  equations (its derivation is given in
Supplementary Materials):
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\frac{\alpha^2}{2} \frac{\hbar^2}{\ell_c^2} \frac{d^2 }{d
p_{y}^2} + \varepsilon_0^{(l)}(p_y) -\varepsilon \right)R_0^{(l)}
+
\tilde{\Delta}R_0^{(r)}  =0;\nonumber \\
\left(\frac{\alpha^2}{2} \frac{\hbar^2}{\ell_c^2} \frac{d^2 }{d
p_y^2} + \varepsilon_0^{(r)}(p_y) -\varepsilon \right)
  R_0^{(r)}  +\tilde{\Delta} R_0^{(l)} =0,
\label{BasicEquation}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha =\omega_1 /\omega_c $, and
$\varepsilon_0^{(l,r)}(p_y)$ are the energy spectrum of the left(
right) edge states in the absence of tunneling (dashed line in
Fig. 2A), the dimensionless energy gap
$\tilde{\Delta}=\Delta/(\hbar \omega_c)$ is determined by the
quantum tunneling across the barrier.

As  $\alpha \ll 1$  one may solve  this set of equations in the quasiclassical approximation.
 Indeed, substituting  $\Psi_{1,2} =A_{1,2}(p_y)\exp\{i S(p_y)\ell_c/(\hbar\alpha)\}$ in
 Eq.(\ref{BasicEquation}) and introducing the classical momentum as $P =d S/dp_y$ one
 finds that the electron dynamics is determined by the quasiclassical phase trajectories
 $P(p_y)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
P^2=\varepsilon - \frac{\varepsilon_0^{(l)}(p_y)+\varepsilon_0^{(r)}(p_y)}{2} \pm \nonumber \\
\pm \sqrt{\Big(\frac{
\varepsilon_0^{(l)}(p_y)-\varepsilon_0^{(r)}(p_y)}{2}\Big)^2+\tilde{\Delta}^2}.
\label{momentum}
\end{eqnarray}

Notice here that the quasiclassical approximation is valid as
$|\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0^{(l,r)}(p_y)| \gg \alpha^{2/3}$.

The quasiclassical phase trajectories determined by
Eq.(\ref{momentum}) for different values of the electron energy
$\varepsilon$ are shown in Fig. 2B. As the well separated phase
trajectories approach to each other the quantum tunneling  occurs
between them. However, in  contrast to the standard interband
transitions \cite{LandauZienerBlount}, in the case under
consideration the tunnelling takes place in the vicinity of
Lifshitz's phase transition \cite{Lifshitz}. Indeed, as it follows
from Eq.(\ref{momentum}) there are two critical energies at which
the topology of trajectories changes: at first, in the vicinity of
the energy $\varepsilon_{cr}^{(1)} = \varepsilon_0
-\tilde{\Delta}$ the mutual directions of the motion on two open
trajectories vary (see Fig. 2Ba and 2Bb); secondly, a new closed
orbit arises at  the critical energy $\varepsilon_{cr}^{(2)} =
\epsilon_0 +\tilde{\Delta}$ (see Fig. 2Bc and 2Bd).
The quasiclassical approximation breaks down not only at the turning points but also
in the vicinity of the point $p_y=0$ where the quantum tunneling takes place.

  \begin{figure}

 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{kadigrobov_fig2.eps}}

 \caption{\textbf{The energy spectrum of electron states bounded to the lateral
 junction and corresponding quasiclassical trajectories.}
A) The lowest two bands  of the  spectrum $\epsilon_n(p_y)$  are
shown by dashed
  (in the absence of tunneling) and solid (in the
  presence of  tunneling) lines.
 B) The phase trajectories $P(p_y)$  for different values of the electron energy:
 a)$\varepsilon<\varepsilon_{cr}^{(1)}=\varepsilon_0-\tilde{\Delta}$;
 b)$\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{cr}^{(1)}$;
  c) $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{cr}^{(2)}=\varepsilon_0+\tilde{\Delta}$;
   d)$\varepsilon>\varepsilon_{cr}^{(2)}$ (here $2 \tilde{\Delta}$ is the energy gap).}

 \label{trajectories}
 \end{figure}

In order to properly elaborate quantum tunnelling between various
quasiclassical phase trajectories we apply  the perturbation
analysis which is valid in a whole ranges of energies but the
energy gap $\tilde{\Delta}$ is assumed to be small. Introducing
the Fourier transformation as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Fourier2}
\Phi(p_y)_{1,2}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} g_{1,2}(Y)
 \exp \{i\frac{Y p_y \ell_c }{\hbar\alpha}\} dY
\end{eqnarray}
and presenting  the Fourier transform $g_{1,2}(Y)$ in the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{u}
g_{1,2}=u_{1,2}(\zeta)e^{\{\pm i(\frac{2}{3}\zeta^3+2 \eta \zeta)\}},
\end{eqnarray}
one gets the following set of equations \cite{PRL} for the new
variable $\zeta=Y[\frac{\ell_c \omega_c}{\alpha v}]^{1/3}$ (here,
$v=|d\varepsilon_0^{(l)}(p_y)/dp_y|$ is the electron velocity):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SystemH3}
&&\hspace{5mm} i\frac{du_1(\zeta)}{d\zeta}=-
\gamma e^{-i\left(\frac{2}{3}\zeta^3 +
2\eta \zeta\right)} u_2(\zeta) \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{5mm} i\frac{du_2(\zeta)}{d\zeta}=+
\gamma e^{i\left(\frac{2}{3}\zeta^3 + 2\eta\zeta\right)} u_1(\zeta),
\end{eqnarray}
where the parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma = 2^{1/3} \tilde{\Delta} \Big[\frac{\ell_c \omega_c}{\alpha
v}\Big]^{2/3}, \hspace{3mm} \eta = 2^{1/3}(\varepsilon_0
-\varepsilon)\Big[\frac{\ell_c \omega_c}{\alpha v} \Big]^{2/3}.
\label{Parameters}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the parameter $\eta$ controls  the topology of the phase
trajectories (see Fig.\ref{trajectories}B) and the parameter
$\gamma$ determines the probability of quantum tunnelling between
trajectories.

The perturbation analysis of Eq.(\ref{SystemH3}) in the limit of
$\gamma \ll 1$ allows one to obtain the probability $D(E)$ for a
particle in the momentum space  to be transmitted from $p_y
\rightarrow + \infty $  to $p_y \rightarrow - \infty $ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{probability2}
D(\epsilon) =  \gamma^2 \Big[\pi 2^{2/3} \textrm{Ai} \left( 2^{2/3}
\eta \right) \Big]^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textrm{Ai}(x)$ is the Airy function \cite{Stegan} (see
Supplementary Material, Section II). The typical dependence of
$D(\epsilon)$ is shown in Fig. 3.

  \begin{figure}

 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{kadigrobov_fig3.eps}}

 \caption{\textbf{Energy dependent transmission probability.}
 Dependence of the transmission probability $D$ on the normalized
 energy $\varepsilon$ is   shown. The transparency of  the lateral barrier (which acts as a
 tunable quantum scatterer) is zero as long as the electron energy is below the lowest energy
 gap at $E_0/\hbar \omega_c = 1.5$ (see Fig. \ref{trajectories}A). Further increase
 of $E$ results in a narrow sharp peak accompanied by fast
 transparency oscillations (thin solid line) caused by the quantum
 interference inside the effective scatter.  The fast oscillations are  partially washed out at finite
 temperature $T$ (thick solid line).   The parameters $\alpha=10^{-2}$, $v/(l_c \omega_c)= 2$,
 and $k_B T/\hbar \omega_c=10^{-2}$  have been used. }

 \label{edgestates}
 \end{figure}

One can see that  $D(E)$ is an extremely small as $E<(3/2)\hbar
\omega_c$. In the opposite
 regime
at $E>(3/2)\hbar \omega_c$,  $D(E)$ displays both a great
enhancement and fast oscillations
 with
a small period of $\delta E_1~\simeq~\hbar \omega_c \alpha^{2/3}$.
The origin of these oscillations is the quantization of a
quantum-mechanical phase of the wave function of electrons moving
along the closed orbit  (see, Fig. 2Bd). At finite temperatures
these fast oscillations  are partially washed out, and it results
in a strong decay of the function $D(E)$ as  $E>(3/2)\hbar
\omega_c$ (see Fig. 3, thick solid line).

As we turn to the electronic transport in the quantum Hall regime
it can be shown (see Supplementary Material,  for details) that
$D(E)$ determines also the energy  dependent transmission
coefficient of electrons propagating across the lateral junction.
Thus,  $D(\mu)$ determines the linear conductance $G_x$. Here,
$\mu$ is the chemical potential of the system.

The current-voltage characteristic $I(V)$ of the QPC in a broad voltage region is obtained by
making
use of the Landauer-B\"{u}ttiker approach \cite{QH} as:

\begin{eqnarray}\label{current}
I(V) = \frac{2 e}{h} \sum_{n}\int d E D_n(E) \\\nonumber
[f(E+eV/2)- f(E-e V/2)]~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f(E)$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. Notice
here, that the transmission coefficients for upper bands, $D_n$,
are also determined by the energy differences to the crossing
points $\varepsilon_n$ as
$$
D_n=\gamma^2_n \Big[\pi 2^{2/3} \textrm{Ai} \left( 2^{2/3} \eta_n
\right) \Big]^2
$$
where $$\eta_n \approx 2^{1/3}(\varepsilon_n
-\varepsilon)[\frac{\ell_c \omega_c}{\alpha v_n}]^{2/3}$$ and
$$\gamma_n \approx 2^{1/3}\Delta_n \Big[\frac{\ell_c
\omega_c}{\alpha v_n}\Big]^{2/3}$$ (see Supplementary Materials,
Section III, for details) . The differential conductance $G_x$ is
determined as $G_x=dI/dV$. The typical dependence of $G_x(V)$
determined by Eqs. (\ref{probability2}) and (\ref{current}) is
shown in Fig. 4.

The dependence of $G_x(V)$ displays giant oscillations with the period
$\delta E_2~\simeq~\hbar \omega_c$. The two reasons determine the appearance of
peaks in the $G_x(V)$ dependence: at first, the applied voltage distorts the spectrum of bound
states to $\epsilon_n(p_y, eV)$, and  secondly, the voltage tunable energy of electrons $E=\mu+eV/2$
traces the energy gaps $\Delta_n$ in the spectrum of bound states.

The consistent experimental study of the conductance of a 2D
electron gas biased in the quantum Hall regime and in the presence
of a lateral junction has been carried out in Ref. \cite{kang}.
Our quantitative analysis presented in Fig. 3,4 shows all
important features observed in \cite{kang}, namely a great
enhancement and fast oscillations of the linear conductance $G_x
(0)$ as the magnetic field was decreased (a decrease of the
magnetic field results in an effective increase of the chemical
 potential $\mu$), and unique giant oscillations of $G_x(V)$.

  \begin{figure}

 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{kadigrobov_fig4.eps}}

 \caption{\textbf{Dependence of the normalized conductance
on the applied dc voltage.}
 The parameters   $\alpha=10^{-2}$,  $\mu_0/\hbar \omega_c=1$, $v/ l_c \omega_c=2$
 and $k_B T/\hbar \omega_c=10^{-2}$ have been used
 (here $G_0= (4 e/h)\gamma^2$ and $\mu_0$ is
 the chemical
 potential in the absence of the applied voltage).}
 \label{conductance}
\end{figure}

In conclusion, we have shown that in the quantum Hall regime a lateral junction formed  in the QPC serves as a unique
quantum-mechanical scatterer for propagating magnetic edge states. Such a lateral junction hosts the electrons bound states having a
peculiar magnetic field dependent 1D spectrum
$\varepsilon_n(p_y)$. This spectrum contains an alternating
sequence of narrow energy bands and gaps. These band and gaps
manifests themselves by  giant oscillations of the transmission
coefficient $T(E)$ on the electron energy $E$ and the voltage
dependent conductance $G_x(V)$. Our theoretical analysis based on the coherent quantum-mechanical superposition of localized and delocalized magnetic edge states  is in a good accord with the experemental observations \cite{kang}. Such a generic  approach [see the Eqs. (\ref{BasicEquation}) and (\ref{probability2})] can be applied to the variety of solid state systems where the physical properties are determined by the coherent quantum dynamics of interacting quantum-mechanical objects, e.g. the magnetic edge states propagation in graphene based nanostructures \cite{grapheneLat} or the superconducting quantum metamaterials \cite{SM}.

\textbf{Acknowledgements:}The financial support of the Ministry of Education and Science of
the Russian Federation  in the framework of
Increase Competitiveness Program of NUST "MISiS"($K2-2014-015$) and
the SPP programme "Graphene" of the DFG are acknowledged.

\vspace{3cm}