abstract: The sample-inefficiency problem in Artificial Intelligence refers to the inability of current Deep Reinforcement Learning models to optimize action policies within a small number of episodes. Recent studies have tried to overcome this limitation by adding memory systems and architectural biases to improve learning speed, such as in Episodic Reinforcement Learning. However, despite achieving incremental improvements, their performance is still not comparable to how humans learn behavioral policies. In this paper, we capitalize on the design principles of the Distributed Adaptive Control (DAC) theory of mind and brain to build a novel cognitive architecture (DAC-ML) that, by incorporating a hippocampus-inspired sequential memory system, can rapidly converge to effective action policies that maximize reward acquisition in a challenging foraging task.
author: Ismael T. Freire; Adrián F. Amil; Vasiliki Vouloutsi;
Paul F.M.J. Verschure [^1]
title: Towards sample-efficient policy learning with DAC-ML

# Introduction

With the advent of Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), the last decade has been marked by several historical landmarks in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), in terms of both scientific and societal impact. Reaching human-level performance in historically considered uniquely-human intellectual domains (such as chess , Go , and real-time strategy video games ) has led to renewed claims about its resemblance to human cognition. Some researchers have even proposed that DRL could be a valid metaphor to understand the brain . However, criticisms to this view have pointed out to at least one great fundamental difference between human learning and deep learning approaches: sample efficiency .

Sample efficiency refers to the number of data samples required for a learning system to attain a target level of performance (see for a more detailed discussion on the topic). Current DRL models are sample inefficient because they require large amounts of training episodes to achieve human-level performance. An example of this limitation is the research on emergent tool-use in a hide-and-seek multi-agent game; where DRL agents took up to 380 million episodes to learn some of the more sophisticated behaviors .

Recent research in the field has sought to find solutions to the sample-inefficiency problem by introducing algorithms that make use of a memory system to bootstrap policy learning, such as in Episodic Reinforcement Learning (ERL) . In ERL, stored episodes are retrieved from past interactions with the environment to support decision-making when the agent encounters similar states. However, states are treated as being independent of one another. Therefore, ERL cannot capitalize on the sequential nature of experience that gives rise to highly informative state-transition statistics.

In this paper, we present a novel cognitive architecture well suited for state-of-the-art Machine Learning (ML) environments, whereby policy learning and action selection are based on a sequential memory system inspired by the human hippocampus . In particular, building upon the architectural principles of the Distributed Adaptive Control (DAC) theory of mind and brain, we derive a biologically-inspired architecture (DAC-ML) that leverages the continuous nature of experience to bootstrap policy learning in a sample-efficient manner. We demonstrate the learning efficiency of DAC-ML in a challenging foraging task and show how the sequential feature of the memory system is key for achieving such fast learning dynamics.

# Cognitive architecture

DAC-ML is a biologically-inspired cognitive architecture composed of three layers (Reactive, Adaptive, and Contextual, see Fig. ). It is built based on the architectural principles of DAC of layered and hierarchical organization, that predicate that cognition is hierarchically distributed in different layers of control , , .

The Reactive layer represents the agent's prewired reflexes and provides predefined responses that allow for simple but robust interaction with the environment. In DAC-ML, the Reactive layer incorporates a pseudo-random-walk algorithm that drives the agent to explore the environment and facilitates the input sampling initially required by the learning in the upper layers of the architecture (see Fig. , bottom panel).

The Adaptive Layer, where the perceptual learning takes place, contains a convolutional autoencoder that uses the sensory input sampled by the Reactive layer to build compressed representations of the state space (see Fig. , middle panel). These state representations are then linked with the agent's action at every step to build the state-action couplets to be conveyed to the Contextual layer for policy learning. Moreover, the transmission of the couplets to the Contextual layer depends on the compressed representations surpassing a quality threshold, assessed by the convolutional autoencoder's corresponding reconstruction error.

The Contextual layer uses stored sequential episodic memories to perform policy learning and to guide real-time decision-making. It is composed of short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) buffers, and an action selection algorithm (see Fig. , top panel). The STM transiently stores the most recent sequence of state-action couplets generated by the agent's interaction with the environment, and it is updated following a first-in, first-out (FIFO) rule. Once a goal is encountered, the current sequence maintained in the STM is conveyed and stored in the LTM with its associated reward value. In the current implementation, the STM has a fixed length of 50 state-action couplets, while the capacity of LTM is limited to 100 sequences.

### Action selection with a sequential memory bias for rapid policy learning.

The Contextual layer's action selection algorithm, while being invariant in itself, selects an action based on the recent history of observed states and performed actions. Concretely, at every time step, the observed compressed state is compared, based on a similarity metric (i.e., Euclidean distance), with all the state representations stored in LTM. The similarity scores are then weighted by an additional memory system storing the trigger values, which keep track of the recent history of selected state-action couplets (as in ). This procedure increases the eligibility of the couplets that come immediately after the recently selected ones. Hence, the resulting eligibility scores (i.e., similarity scores weighted by the trigger values) effectively bias the action selection towards continuing on recently visited sequences in LTM.

Furthermore, a set of state-action couplets in LTM is selected based on their eligibility scores surpassing both absolute and proportional thresholds. This procedure enforces a winner-takes-all mechanism that has been shown to operate in the hippocampus . The selected set of state-action couplets are then assigned the reward values associated with their corresponding sequences, weighted by an exponential decay based on each couplet's normalized distance to the end of the sequence. This mechanism favors the selection of actions that are closer in time to bigger rewards. Moreover, the reward values assigned to each couplet are normalized to the maximum reward associated with the selected couplets, thus implementing a relative reward valuing function. Lastly, the final action to be performed is randomly drawn from the probability distribution generated over the discrete action space by normalizing the sums of all the relative reward values associated with the actions of each selected couplet. Then, the trigger values are updated based on the selected couplets so that the couplets selection (and thus action selection) in the next time step is biased towards following the same sequences. This biasing mechanism is further reinforced by behavioral feedback , whereby the input sampling caused by the selected action favors the storage of similar sequences of state-action couplets. At the same time, our implementation of the action selection as a probability distribution over the discrete action space keeps the Bayesian optimality feature of previous DAC models operating in a continuous action space .

# Results

We used the Animal-AI framework to create the simulation environment for testing the capabilities of the DAC-ML cognitive architecture. Animal-AI is an AI experimentation and evaluation platform specially designed to allow for cognitive testing in reinforcement learning and spatial navigation tasks. This framework imposes several realistic constraints regarding the type of input an agent can receive since the agents have to learn to navigate the 3D environment only guided by first-person observations in the form of raw pixel data.

To test the efficacy of DAC-ML in obtaining rewards by acquiring stable behavioral sequences, we tested it in a foraging task that requires the sequential encoding and retrieval of adequate visual cues in order to reach the reward location in an optimal amount of time. The environment is a colored maze (see Fig. ) with only one reward source in the center. The walls are painted with different colors to serve as visual cues for the agent. At the beginning of each episode, the agent is randomly allocated in one of the four corners of the maze and has to reach the center to acquire the reward. The reward value is initially set to 3, and it decays linearly with time until the end of the episode. An episode finishes either when the agent reaches the reward or when the time limit is reached.

We ran 20 simulations of 1.000 episodes each and compared the results of DAC-ML against two control agents: (1) a Reactive agent that randomly explores the environment, and (2) a version of DAC-ML with the same set of parameters but without incorporating the sequential memory bias, and thus treating the state-action couplets as independent units. The results show the capacity of DAC-ML to efficiently acquire rewards in the foraging task in relatively few episodes, as compared with the control agents. Fig. -top shows the difference in reward acquisition between the three agents. We show that DAC-ML is able to maximize the reward acquisition in less than 1.000 episodes. In addition, Fig. -center shows the number of steps (time) taken by the agents in every episode to reach the reward. These results demonstrate that DAC-ML can optimize the time it requires to reach the reward and that it generates rapid learning dynamics compared to a more standard cognitive architecture that does not incorporate a memory system based on episodic sequences. Finally, we also estimated the stability over time of the action selection (i.e., policy learning) by computing the mean entropy across the probability distributions over the action space throughout each episode. In the bottom panel of Fig. , we observe how the policy entropy also steadily decreases over time for DAC-ML (but not for the control agent), indicating convergence towards a stable action policy. Overall, these results demonstrate the advantage of incorporating a sequential memory bias in achieving rapid and stable policy learning in a cognitive architecture optimized by reinforcement learning.

# Discussion and Future Work

In this paper, we have presented DAC-ML, a novel cognitive architecture based on the organizational principles of the Distributed Adaptive Control theory, that can efficiently maximize reward acquisition in a challenging foraging task. DAC-ML is a memory-guided decision-making architecture inspired by the hippocampus, that stores complete episodic sequences of state-action couplets to guide action selection. We showed that this biologically-inspired architectural bias promotes the rapid generation of stable and efficient goal-directed behavior, thus affording sample-efficient policy learning.

In contrast with classical RL where the policy is directly updated by the learning algorithm, in DAC-ML, policy learning is achieved through the interaction of the different components of its layered architecture. Since action-selection in DAC-ML follows a fixed rule, the main driver of policy learning is the constant acquisition and retrieval of new sequential memories. In other words, the behavioral policy of a DAC-ML agent is implicitly updated by the memories it forms in its interaction with the environment. Moreover, DAC-ML emphasizes the learning of complete behavioral sequences, whereas ERL usually treats its memory units as separate disconnected events. The incorporation of this hippocampus-inspired architectural bias bootstraps the formation of a behavioral feedback loop , allowing DAC-ML to rapidly transition from an initial exploration phase to a more exploitative phase in which the behavior of the agent stabilizes over time while maximizing reward acquisition.

With this work, we seek to contribute to the available proposed solutions to the sample-inefficiency problem in reinforcement learning by taking inspiration from empirical and theoretical research from the cognitive sciences. In future work, we plan to extend the results presented in this paper by directly comparing DAC-ML with state-of-the-art ERL models, and test it in multi-agent environments, such as in game-theoretic dilemmas .

# Acknowledgements

This research received funding from the H2020-EU project HR-Recycler, ID: 820742.

[^1]: ITF and AFA contributed equally to this work


abstract: Recently a renormalizable model of gravity has been proposed, which might be a UV completion of General Relativity (GR) or its infra-red modification, probably with a strongly coupled scalar mode. Although the generic vacuum of the theory is anti-de Sitter one, particular limits of the theory allow for the Minkowski vacuum. In this limit (though without consideration of the strongly coupled scalar field) post-Newtonian coefficients of spherically symmetric solutions coincide with those of the General Relativity. Thus the deviations from the convenient GR should be tested beyond the post-Newtonian corrections, that is for a system with strong gravity at astrophysical scales. In this letter we consider potentially observable properties of black holes in the deformed Horava-Lifshitz gravity with Minkowski vacuum: the gravitational lensing and quasinormal modes. We have showed that the bending angle is seemingly smaller in the considered Horava-Lifshitz gravity than in GR. The quasinormal modes of black holes are longer lived and have larger real oscillation frequency in the Horava-Lifshitz gravity than in GR. These corrections should be observable in the near future experiments on lensing and by gravitational antennas, helping to constrain parameters of the Horava-Lifshitz gravity or to discard it.
author: **R. A. Konoplya**
*Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan*
title: **Towards constraining of the Horava-Lifshitz gravities**

# Introduction

Recently P. Horava suggested a renormalizable four-dimensional theory of gravity, which admits the Lifshitz scale-invariance in time and space , . Thus, except of a particular limit, the theory is with a broken Lorentz symmetry at short distances, while at large distances, higher derivative terms do not contribute and the theory runs to a kind of classical gravity theory, if a coupling, which controls the contribution of trace of the extrinsic curvature has a particular value ($\lambda =1$). An important observation that has been made recently is that in this infra-red limit of the theory, gravity needs to be strongly coupled to a scalar field , . This happens because in the particular infra-red limit of the theory, the detailed balance is explicitly broken, instead of the full diffeomorphism the theory has a reduced one, and thereby should have more propagating degrees of freedom than GR has. Various properties and consequences of the Horava gravities have been considered recently in a lot of papers .

In this letter we shall investigate a particular, non-minimal limit of the deformed Horava theory, which implies the Minkowski vacuum and a kind of modified gravity at infra-red, without consideration of the strongly coupled scalar mode. As in this specific limit, post-Newtonian corrections of the Horava Gravity coincide with those of the standard GR , the effects when the gravitational field is weak are well described by the post-Newtonian approximations. To test the theory in experiment, one needs therefore the astrophysically strong gravitational field effects. A system at hand is a supermassive black holes, whose parameters might be observed through its characteristic frequencies, called quasinormal modes . The latter are proper oscillations of a black hole as a response to external perturbations. Another opportunity is to observe the gravitational lensing effects, such as bending angle and time delay, for a super-massive Galactic black hole at small impact parameters $b$. (At large $b$ the lensing is in the regime of the weak field and thus well described by post-Newtonian approximations.) Here we shall consider both effects, quasinormal modes and gravitational lensing for a asymptotically flat black holes in the particular, non-minimal Horava gravity. We shall show that both effects give considerable deviation from the standard GR.

The paper is organized as follows. Sec II gives the brief description of the black hole, under consideration. Sec III analyzes the geodesic motion for massless particles. Sec IV is devoted to the bending angle effect and Sec V gives quasinormal modes for the test scalar field in the background of the black hole. In the Conclusions we outline the number of open questions and summarize the obtained results.

# The black hole metric

In the particular limit $\Lambda_W \rightarrow 0$. the Horava-Lifshitz theory can be described by the following action $$S=\int dt d^3 x \sqrt{g} N \left(\frac{2}{\kappa^2}(K_{ij}K^{ij}-\lambda
K^2)-\frac{\kappa^2}{2w^4}C_{ij}C^{ij}+\frac{\kappa^2 \mu}{2w^2}\epsilon^{ijk} R^{(3)}_{i\ell}
\nabla_{j}R^{(3)\ell}{}_k \right.$$ $$\left. -\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8} R^{(3)}_{ij} R^{(3)ij} +\frac{\kappa^2
\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)} \frac{1-4\lambda}{4}(R^{(3)})^2+\mu^4 R^{(3)}\right).$$ Here $$K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}\left(\dot{g}_{ij}-\nabla_i
N_j-\nabla_jN_i\right)\ ,$$ $$C^{ij}=\epsilon^{ik\ell}\nabla_k
\left(R^{(3)j}{}_\ell-\frac{1}{4}R^{(3)} \delta^j_\ell\right)\ ,$$ are the the second fundamental form and the Cotton tensor respectively. In the particular type of the Horava theory, we have $$c^2= k^2 \mu^4 /2, \quad G = k^2/32 \pi c, \quad \lambda = 1.$$ The black hole solution for the $\lambda =1$ theory has the form (see formula (30) in and ) $$ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2 (d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
d\phi^2 ),$$ where $$\omega=8 \mu^2(3\lambda-1)/\kappa^2 = \omega=16\mu^2/\kappa^2$$ $$f(r)= 1 + \omega r^2- \sqrt{r(\omega^2 r^3 + 4\omega M)},$$ and $M$ is an integration constant.

There are two event horizons at $$r_\pm= M \left(1\pm \sqrt{1-{1/2 \omega M^2}}\right).$$ Avoiding naked singularity at the origin implies $$\omega M^2 \geq \frac{1}{2}.$$ In the regime of the conventional General Relativity $\omega M^2\gg 1$ the outer horizon approaches the Schwarzschild horizon $r_+\simeq 2 M$ and the inner horizon approaches the central singularity.

# Geodesic motion

In the Horava-Lifshitz gravity, there is no a full diffeo-invariance of the Hamiltonian formalism. In the theory with matter lagrangian an alternative covariant approach should be used instead , where the matter couples to gravity in a consistent way. Then corrected Hamiltonian equations should be used. Here, as a first step, we shall neglect these corrections and shall imply that at large distances and small momenta the ordinary Hamiltonian formalism can be used as some approximation. In this way, we include into consideration the influence of the astrophysical background (a black hole) on a light propagation, but do not include the deviation into the form of the propagator. The full analysis certainly should be based on the covariant approach to the Horava gravity , as well as on inclusion of strongly coupled scalar mode , . This also concerns the quasinormal mode analysis related further.

Our main aim will be analysis of the null geodesic motion with the help of the ordinary Hamiltonian formalism. However, we shall consider also some general features of both null and tim-like geodesics, implying therefore a massive term in the geodesic equation. The Hamiltonian has the form $$H=\frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \nu} p_{\mu} p_{\nu} = - \frac{1}{2} \mu^2, \quad p_{\mu} = g_{\mu \nu} \frac{d x^{\mu}}{d s}.$$

Then, the Hamilton-Jacoby equations for the time-like and null geodesics are $$\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\mu}} \frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\nu}} = \frac{\partial S}{\partial s} = - \frac{1}{2} \mu^2.$$ Here $s$ is an invariant affine parameter. For the metric (5) this equation takes the form $$f^{-1} \left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}\right)^{2} - f \left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r}\right)^{2} - \frac{1}{r^2} \left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial \theta}\right)^{2} - \frac{1}{r^2 \sin^2 \theta} \left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial \phi}\right)^{2} = \mu^2$$ The action is: $$S = -\frac{1}{2} \mu^2 s - E t + L \phi + S_{r}(r) + S_{\theta}(\theta),$$ and $E$ and $L$ are the particle's energy and angular momentum respectively, $p_{0} = - E$, and $p_{3} = L$, $p_1 = S_{r}$ and $p_2 = S_{\theta}$ are functions of $r$ and $\theta$ respectively. Due-to spherical symmetry of the background any central plane of motion can be considered as an equatorial, and one can consider $\theta =\pi/2$ without loss of generality.

Implying the normalization $\tau = \mu s$, where $\tau$ is the proper time, the first integrals of motion are $$\mu f(r) \frac{d t}{d s}= E, \quad \mu \frac{d r}{d s} = \pm \sqrt{(E^2 - U_{eff}^2)}, \quad \mu \frac{d \phi}{d s} = \frac{L}{r^2}.$$

The qualitative analysis of the motion can be made by considering the effective potential of the motion, $$U_{eff}^2  =  \mu^{2} f(r) \left(1+ \frac{L^2}{\mu^{2} r^2}\right).$$ The effective potentials for various values of $\omega$ are plotted on Fig. (), where one can see that as $\omega$ grows, the effective potential approaches the Schwarzschild form.

It is well known that for the Schwarzschild black hole of mass $M$, there are two circular orbits of time-like geodesics, which radii are given by the equation $\partial U_{eff}/ \partial r = 0$. The inner orbit corresponds to maximum of the effective potential and is therefore unstable, while the outer orbit corresponds to a local minim and is stable. The minimal value of the momenta $L$, necessary for the existence of the outer stable orbit is $$L_{min} = 2 \sqrt{3} M \mu,$$ or equivalently $$L > 2 \sqrt{3} M \mu.$$ For null geodesics, there is no (stable) circular orbits in the Schwarzschild space-time, except for the one unstable orbit located in the maximum of the effective potential.

The presence of $\omega$ slightly changes the situation. The radius of closed (unstable) circular orbit for null geodesics equals $r_{cir} = 2.37228 M$ for $\omega =1/2$ and monotonically increases with $\omega$, approaching the pure Schwarzschild value $r_{cir} = 3 M$ for $\omega M^2\gg L$ (see Fig.). Thus for null geodesics, as in the Schwarzschild case, there is only one unstable circular closed orbit at the maximum of the potential, though of smaller radius in the presence of $\omega$.

In a similar fashion, the time-like geodesics around the Horava black hole has two circular orbits: an inner one (unstable) and an outer (stable). The condition for existence of the outer stable orbit reads $$L > 2 \sqrt{3} M \mu - \frac{\epsilon(\omega)}{\mu M},$$ where the function $\epsilon (\omega)$ is shown on Fig..

# Bending angle

The propagation equation for the null geodesics is $$\left(\frac{d r}{d t}\right)^{2} = -\frac{g_{00}}{g_{11}} \left(1 + \frac{g_{00}}{g_{33}}b^{2}\right), \quad b = L/E.$$ The geodesic trajectory equation for the null geodesics has the form $$\left(\frac{d r}{d \phi}\right)^{2} = -\frac{g_{33}}{g_{11}} \left(1 + \frac{g_{33}}{g_{00}}b^{-2} \right).$$ Thus the propagation and trajectory equations contain the ratio $b$, which is *the impact parameter*.

When passing near the black hole, a ray of light approaches it at some minimal distance, called *distance of closest approach* $r_{min}$. The latter can be found as the largest real root of the equation $dr/dt = 0$. For the asymptotically flat black holes (4-6) in the considered Horava-Lifshitz gravity, this equation reads $$r^2 + b^2 (\sqrt{r \omega(4 M + \omega r^3)} -r^2 \omega -1) = 0.$$

Upon calculation of $r_{min}$ with good accuracy, one can perform integrations for finding bending angle: $$\alpha = \phi_{s}-\phi_{o} = -\int_{r_{s}}^{r_{min}} \frac{d \phi}{d r} dr +
\int_{r_{min}}^{r_{o}} \frac{d \phi}{d r} dr - \pi.$$ Here $r_{o}$ is radial coordinate of an observer and $r_{s}$ is radial coordinate of the source. One can see the bending angles as a function of $\omega$ on Fig. 3 and 4. for various values of the impact parameter. Starting from a conventional General Relativity, s super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy has the mass $M = (3.6 \pm 0.2) 10^{6} M_{\bigodot}$ (what corresponds to $M
\approx 3.4 \cdot 10^{-7}$ pc, in units c=G=1), and is situated at a distance $r_{o}= (7.9 \pm 0.4) 10^{3}$ pc from the Earth. Typical distance from a source to a black hole is of order $r_{s}
= 1$ pc. Now let us take $M = 1$, then we can re-scale the corresponding values for $r_{o}$ and $r_{s}$

$$r_{o}= 2.3235 \cdot 10^{10}, \quad r_{s} = 2.9412 \cdot 10^{6},
\quad M=1.$$

In the used here units, the bending angle is smaller for the Horava-Lifshitz gravity than for the convenient General Relativity. (However, in order to give some numerical estimations for experiments, one should include also the re-definitions of the fundamental constants (1)) In the regime of large $\omega M^2$ the bending angle approach its Schwarzschild values. For relatively small $\omega$ the deviation from Schwarzschild values is significant for small impact parameter $b$ (see Fig. 3), while for large $b$, the deviations from Schwarzschild values are almost negligible. As large $b$ regime is well described by the post-Newtonian coefficients of the metric, it confirms the fact that the metric (4-6) has the same Eddington–Robertson–Schiff Post-Newtonian parameters $\beta=\gamma=1$ as pure Schwarzschild metric does .

The observed here corrections would be measurable today if a pulsar were found to be lensed by the Galactic super-massive black hole. Also it might be detected with various planned experimental missions for observations of gravitational lensing.

# Quasinormal modes

As in the case of lensing, our approach here suffers from a number of approximations, which we shall enumerate here: 1) We neglect the possible strong coupling of the scalar mode in the Horava gravity , . We can do this as some approximation to the realistic picture because of the following reasons. Quasinormal spectrum of black holes consists of a set of modes with various multipole numbers $\ell$. In the regime of large $\ell$ the quasinormal spectrum does not depend on the spin of the field under consideration and stipulated by the centrifugal term $\sim f(r) \ell (\ell +1)/r^2$ in the effective potential. At the same time, for *axial type* of gravitational perturbations *the background scalar mode is not excited*. In other words, one can always select some modes of gravitation spectrum of a black hole, which will be well described by a test scalar field in the background of the black hole. This certainly implies that we neglected the influence of the scalar mode on the black hole metric itself. 2) We implied the existence of the approximate Hamiltonian formalism and corresponding consequences, such as existence of the traditional Green functions etc., because we expect that *at large distances and relatively small momenta* these corrections to the ordinary Lorentz-invariant physics should be relatively small.

Thus the wave equations for the test scalar $\Phi$ is

$$(g^{\nu \mu}
\sqrt{-g} \Phi_{,\mu})_{,\nu} = 0,$$

After separation of angular variable and introducing a new wave function $\Psi_{s}$, the perturbation equation can be reduced to the wave-like form

$$\label{wavelike}
\frac{d^{2} \Psi_{i}}{d r_{*}^{2}} + (\tilde{\omega}^{2} - V_{s}(r))\Psi_{i} =
0,\qquad d r_{*}= (A(r) B(r))^{-1/2} dr,$$ where the scalar field effective potentials has the form: $$\label{sp}
V_{s} = A(r)\frac{\ell (\ell + 1)}{r^{2}} + \frac{1}{2 r}(A(r) B`(r) +A`(r) B(r)),$$ Here $A(r) = B(r) = f(r)$. The effective potential has the form of the positive definite potential barriers. The quasinormal modes are solutions of the wave equation (), with the specific boundary conditions, requiring pure out-going waves at spatial infinity and pure in-coming waves on the event horizon. Thus no waves come from infinity or the event horizon, $$\Psi \sim e^{\pm i r_{*} \tilde{\omega}}, \quad r_{*} \rightarrow \pm \infty.$$ Here we imply that $\tilde{\omega} = Re (\tilde{\omega}) + i Im (\tilde{\omega})$ , and $\Psi \sim e^{i \tilde{\omega} t}$. Thus $Im(\tilde{\omega})$ determines the damping rate of a quasinormal mode and $Re (\tilde{\omega})$ determines its real oscillation frequency. There is no unstable (growing) modes for the test scalar field, as the effective potential is positive definite. Thus there is no modes with $Im(\tilde{\omega}) > 0$

It is well known that in many cases WKB method can give accurate values of the lowest (that is longer lived) quasinormal frequencies. The 6-th order WKB formula reads $$\label{WKBformula}
\frac{\imath Q_{0}}{\sqrt{2 Q_{0}''}} - \sum_{i=2}^{i=6} \Lambda_{i} = N+\frac{1}{2},\qquad N=0,1,2\ldots,$$ where $Q = \tilde{\omega}^2 - V$ and the correction terms $\Lambda_{i}$ were obtained in , . Here $Q_{0}^{i}$ means the i-th derivative of $Q$ at its maximum with respect to the tortoise coordinate $r_\star$. This formula was effectively used in a lot of papers (see for instance and references therein). Fortunately, for the considered here case, WKB series shows convergence in all sixth orders. In general, this is not guaranteed because the WKB series converges only asymptotically.

On table I and II one can see that for relatively small $\tilde{\omega}$ the $Re(\tilde{\omega})$ is larger than in the Schwarzschild limit, while the damping rate $-Im(\tilde{\omega})$ is smaller than for pure Schwarzschild. Thus in the considered Horava theory, quasinormal modes are longer lived and have larger oscillation frequency. In other words, a black hole in the particular Horava theory is a better oscillator than a Schwarzschild black hole. In the limit $\omega M^2\gg 1$, quasinormal modes approach their Schwarzschild values (Table I, II). The approaching of the Schwarzschild limit can be better seen for the fundamental overtone, because the WKB approximation works better when $\ell \geq n$, though, on Table II one can see approaching the Schwarzschild limit for the relatively small overtone numbers $n$. The pure Schwarzschild QNMs given in the tables I and II are accurate, because they were computed by the convergent Frobenius method.

|   $\omega$    |     $\ell =0$     |     $\ell =1$      |     $\ell =2$     |
|:-------------:|:-----------------:|:------------------:|:-----------------:|
|      0.5      | 0.1213 - 0.0732 i | 0.3227 - 0.0723 i  | 0.5343 - 0.0711 i |
|       1       | 0.1208 - 0.0893 i | 0.3057 - 0.0891 i  | 0.5048 - 0.0877 i |
|      1.5      | 0.1171 - 0.0969 i | 0.3011 - 0.0925 i  | 0.4971 - 0.0912 i |
|       2       | 0.1151 - 0.0993 i | 0.2989 - 0.0940 i  | 0.4935 - 0.0927 i |
|       3       | 0.1134 - 0.1007 i | 0.2969 - 0.0953 i  | 0.4901 - 0.0941 i |
|       5       | 0.1129 - 0.1009 i | 0.2953 - 0.09632 i | 0.4874 - 0.0952 i |
|      10       | 0.1113 - 0.1010 i | 0.2941 - 0.0970 i  | 0.4855 - 0.0960 i |
| Schwarzschild | 0.1105 - 0.1049 i | 0.2929 - 0.0977 i  | 0.4836 - 0.0968 i |

Fundamental ($n=0$) WKB quasinormal frequencies for various values of $\omega$, compared to the Schwarzschild QNMs.

| $n$ |   $\omega =1/2$   |    $\omega =1$    |    $\omega=3$     |   Schwarzschild   |
|:---:|:-----------------:|:-----------------:|:-----------------:|:-----------------:|
|  0  | 0.5343 - 0.0711 i | 0.5048 - 0.0877 i | 0.4901 - 0.0941 i | 0.4836 - 0.0968 i |
|  1  | 0.4748 - 0.3625 i | 0.4892 - 0.2665 i | 0.4720 - 0.2871 i | 0.4639 - 0.2956 i |
|  2  | 0.5146 - 0.2147 i | 0.4617 - 0.4540 i | 0.4411 - 0.4925 i | 0.4305 - 0.5086 i |
|  3  | 0.4146 - 0.5184 i | 0.4281 - 0.6518 i | 0.4061 - 0.7136 i | 0.3939 - 0.7381 i |
|  4  | 0.3346 - 0.6872 i | 0.3943 - 0.8596 i | 0.3762 - 0.9493 i | 0.3613 - 0.9800 i |

Higher overtones, calculated by WKB formula, for various values of $\omega$, compared to the Schwarzschild QNMs, $\ell = 2$.

# Conclusions

In the present paper we have considered the quasinormal modes and the bending angle around non-minimal asymptotically flat black holes in the Horava gravity. We have shown that

1\) The quasinormal modes of the non-minimal asymptotically flat black holes in the Horava gravity are longer lived and have larger real oscillation frequencies than their Schwarzschild analogs.

2\) The bending angle is seemingly smaller in the considered Horava gravity than in the standard GR and the deviation might be detectable if a pulsar were found to be lensed by the Galactic super-massive black hole or with the planned missions.

In the near future experiments, this may help in constraining of the coupling constants in the Horava gravity.

Let us enumerate here a number of ways, in which our work may be improved.

First of all, in a similar fashion one can find the time delay, which is the difference between the light travel time for the actual ray, and the travel time for the ray the light would have taken in the Minkowskian space-time: $$t_{s}-t_{o} = -\int_{r_{s}}^{r_{min}} \frac{d t}{d r} dr +
\int_{r_{min}}^{r_{o}} \frac{d t}{d r} dr - \frac{d_{s-o}}{\cos \mathcal{B}} .$$ Here the term $\frac{d_{s-o}}{\cos \mathcal{B}}$ represents the propagation time for a ray of light, if the black hole is absent (see for instance ). However the direct integration may be unstable for the considered case, and a transformation of the integral may be necessary. One can also generalize the geodesic analysis to massive particles, as well as to particles with spin.

The search for quasinormal modes can be continued to fields with non-zero spin, and, what is more important, to gravitational perturbations. The latter will test the stability of black holes in the Horava theory and is therefore an appealing problem. The scalar quasinormal modes, considered in this paper, should give qualitative description of the gravitational ones, at least in the regime of high real oscillation frequencies (eikonal regime), that as we already mentioned does not depend on a spin of a field.

*Note added.* On the same day, when the first version of this manuscript was published in arXiv, a complementary paper of Songbai Chen and Jiliang Jing on quasinormal modes of the deformed Horava-Lifshitz gravity appeared in arXiv.

# Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the *Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)*, Japan. The author acknowledges an anonymous referee for valuable criticism.


author: Sang-Sung Lee; Chung Sik Oh; Duk-Gyoo Roh; Se-Jin Oh; Jongsoo Kim; Jae-Hwan Yeom; Hyo Ryoung Kim; Dong-Gyu Jung; Do-Young Byun; Taehyun Jung; Noriyuki Kawaguchi; Katsunori M. Shibata; Kiyoaki Wajima
date: Received February 9, 2015; accepted March 16, 2015
title:  A New Hardware Correlator in Korea:
  Performance Evaluation using KVN observations

# Introduction

Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) is an astronomical observing technique developed in the 1960s for measuring the accurate position of compact radio sources and obtaining their sky brightness distribution at high angular resolution by detecting fringes of noise signals arriving at two, or more, radio telescopes from the celestial compact radio sources . The noise signals arriving at each radio telescope are filtered, down-converted, and digitally sampled with being accurately time-tagged by a frequency standard located at each observatory. The sampled signals are recorded using magnetic tape systems such as the Mark I system , the Mark II system , the Mark III system , the Mark IV system , and the S2 system , or to hard disk systems such as the Mark 5 system  and the K5 system . The recording media are shipped to a correlator center and played back. At that moment, one of the main roles of the correlator is to detect a fringe between the two signals from radio telescopes after correcting for geometric and instrumental delays of the signals. Pre-estimates of the delays, *apriori* data are applied to the correlation of the signals from the two radio telescopes (or from a baseline). The correlation output in this stage is known as the visibility. The correlation output streams are formatted in Flexible Image Transport System (FITS) interferometry Data Interchange Convention . Through a post-correlation process, the visibilities are used for measuring the accurate positions of celestial radio sources and recovering their sky brightness distributions. The post-correlation process is performed generally with astronomical processing programs: for example, the Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS).

A number of VLBI correlators have been developed to detect the fringes from VLBI observations. The VLBI correlators include hardware and software correlators . Technical progress in parallel computing and high-speed networks enables the construction of software correlators at low price and with short development period. Especially software correlator such as the DiFX  became popular because of its easy installation and extensive support from its user groups. The price per baseline and price per unit data bandwidth are almost the same in software correlators, while the prices decrease significantly with the number of baseline and data rate in hardware correlators. Therefore, hardware correlators become attractive when the target VLBI array consists of a large number of antennas with a wide bandwith system. In addition, the electric power consumption of hardware correlators is much less than that of software correlators, significantly reducing the total operation budget. These are the main reasons why connected arrays, which usually have more elements and wider bandwidth than VLBI arrays, still prefer hardware correlators.

A new hardware correlator (the Daejeon correlator, Figure ) was developed in 2006-2009 by the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI) and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ). The Daejeon correlator will be the main correlator for the East Asian VLBI Network (EAVN) consisting of the Korean VLBI Network (KVN) in Korea , the Japanese VLBI Network (JVN) including the VLBI Exploration of Radio Astrometry (VERA) in Japan, and the Chinese VLBI Network (CVN). This is one of the main motivations for developing the new hardware correlator rather than adopting a software correlator like DiFX . The capability of efficient correlation for large number of stations (e.g., $>$`<!-- -->`{=html}20 for EAVN stations at 22 GHz) is one of the advantages of the hardware correlator. In 2010 we started commissioning operations of the correlator, and began to evaluate its performance using test observations with the combined network of KVN and VERA (Figure ).

The Daejeon hardware correlator is located in the Korea–Japan Correlation Center (KJCC), Korea. The Daejeon correlator consists of several VLBI data playback systems, a Raw VLBI Data Buffer (RVDB), a VLBI Correlation Subsystem (VCS), and a data archive system. The Daejeon correlator was aimed to correlate data obtained from various VLBI networks in East Asia: the KVN, the KVN and VERA combined network, and the East Asia VLBI Network. As these use different recording systems, the Daejeon correlator has several VLBI data playback systems: Mark 5B, VERA2000, OCTADISK, etc. They have different interface for data transmission. The difference in the formats of the playback system led to the introducion of the RVDB system, a big data server with several interfaces. Data from the RVDB are transferred to the VCS, the main part of the Daejeon correlator, and correlated with proper control parameters provided by the correlator control and operation computers. The VCS is able to process a maximum of 16 stations with a maximum recording rate of 8192 Mbps, and 8192 output channels for VLBI observation data. The correlation results from the VCS are then transferred to the data archive system. Detailed description of the correlator will be presented elsewhere (C. S. Oh et al. 2015, in preparation), and its current status can be found in the Internet.[^1]

Performance of the new correlator can be evaluated via investigating the outputs from the whole cycle of the VLBI observations: data acquisition, correlation, and post-correlation process. Careful comparison of the output from the new correlator with that from an existing, reliable correlator  should be conducted.

We conducted test observations of compact radio sources using KVN and VERA, correlated the observed data with the Daejeon correlator and the DiFX software correlator, and performed careful comparison of the outputs. An extensive evaluation using the Daejeon correlator, the DiFX correlator, and Mitaka FX correlator in NAOJ  for the KVN and VERA observations has been conducted. Full results of the extensive comparison will be reported elsewhere (C. S. Oh et al. 2015, in preparation). In this paper, we report the results of the comparison between the Daejeon correlator and the DiFX correlator using the observations only with the KVN. In Section 2, we describe the observations, correlation, and the post-correlation process. The results of this comparison are reported in Section 3, and we discuss an unusual pattern of the correlation output in Section 4. We make conclusions in Section 5.

# Observations and Data Reduction

## Observations Using KVN and VERA

We observed compact radio sources, 3C 454.3, 3C 345, NRAO 512 and Sagittarius A\* (Sgr A\*) at 22 GHz, on 2011 January 28 UT 19:00 and January 29 UT 04:00, using KVN and VERA (7 stations): KVN Yonsei (KY), KVN Ulsan (KU), KVN Tamna (KT), Mizusawa (MIZ), Ishigakigima (ISH), Ogasawara (OGA), and Iriki (IRK). In order to evaluate the various correlation performances of the Daejeon correlator, the several observing modes and scan lengths were considered. For this comparison, we used longer scans (10-20 min) for all sources. The observing frequency is 22.00–22.45 GHz with a selected bandwidth of 256 MHz and in left circular polarization (LCP). The received signals within the frequency bandwidth are 2-bit quantized by AD converters located in the telescope cabin and transferred to the observing building via optical fibre. The transferred digital signals are divided into 16 sub-bands (IFs) by a digital filter bank, and recorded in magnetic disks or tapes by two data acquisition systems: the Mark 5B system (disk-based) in KVN and the VERA2000 system (tape-based) in VERA. The recording rate is 1024 Mbps.

## Correlation Using Daejeon Correlator and DiFX

The recording media were sent to the KJCC. The shipped media were played back using Mark 5B for KVN data and VERA2000 for VERA data. The data from the playback systems were transferred to the RVDB to be correlated in the VCS. Finally, the data were correlated using a 1.6384 s correlator integration time and 128 spectral channels across each 16 MHz band. The correlation was performed in 2013 July. The data recorded at KVN stations were also correlated with the DiFX software correlator. Each scan recorded in the Mark 5B disk packs was extracted by using the utility FUSE,[^2] and was transferred to the file server through the 10 Gigabit network. Scans for strong sources were first used for searching the clock offset and rate of each station, and then all scans were correlated. The correlator integration time was 2.048 s for DiFX and the number of spectral channels was 128 across each 16 MHz band.

## Post-Correlation Process Using AIPS and DIFMAP

We performed further processing using AIPS. We followed a standard processing procedure as described in Figure . The correlated output in FITS format was uploaded into an AIPS catalog by the FITLD task, and information of the FITS file were indexed with the INDXR task. In using FITLD, we did not apply digital correction (Digicor = -1), since it is not necessary for the two correlators. We sorted the indexed catalog in an order of time and baseline (TB) and if necessary, indexed them again. FITS files from the correlator that were divided into several files in time were combined using the DBCON task, while those divided in frequency were combined with the VBGLU task. At KVN and VERA, we sampled the received signals using the digital samplers. During the digital sampling, there could be some amplitude errors of cross-correlation power spectrum. These errors can be corrected using the ACCOR task based on the amplitude of the auto-correlation power spectrum for each station. These corrections for the amplitudes are stored in a solution (SN) table, separate from the FITS file itself. In order to apply the correction in the SN table, we used the CLCAL task and generated a new calibration (CL) table. At this stage, one may average the FITS data in frequency using the AVSPC task. We did not average the FITS data for this work. The residuals of the fringe delay and delay rate after the correlation were searched using the FRING task. This is known as fringe-fitting. FRING provides us with antenna-based solutions of the delay and delay rate based on baseline-based solutions. The solution interval for the fringe-fitting should be pre-determined according to the coherence time of the observation at the observing frequency. For this observation at 22 GHz, we used 1 min as the solution interval of the fringe-fitting. Once we obtained the solutions of the delay and delay rate, we calibrated the phase using CLCAL. After the phase calibration, we performed the amplitude calibration in order to correct for the atmospheric opacity change and for the amplitude errors due to atmospheric fluctuations. We used system temperatures and antenna gain measured at each observatory for converting the correlation coefficient to sky brightness and correcting for the amplitude errors. We stored the calibration information in the TY and GC tables using the ANTAB task and produced the solution of the amplitude calibrations using the APCAL task. We did not correct for the effect of the bandpass filter on the spectrum shape in order to investigate the correlation effect on the spectrum shape. We divided the FITS data for each source with applying all calibration information and exported into $uv$-file using FITTP. For the purpose of the comparison of images, we used the central 115 channels of each IF, excluding the first 6 and last 7 channels.

After the phase and amplitude calibration, we made the contour maps of the target sources using the Caltech DIFMAP software . We averaged the $uv$-data (or visibility data) in a time interval of 30 s, and flagged outliers in amplitude in order to increase the data processing speed and decrease random error of individual visibility data. We should note that the averaging time interval of 30 s is shorter than the coherence time of this observation. As a first step of mapping (or imaging) with DIFMAP, we fitted a point-source model to the visibility and self-calibrated the phase according to the model, in order to find the converged model to the visibility. As a second step, we used the CLEAN deconvolution algorithm and the amplitude- and phase-self-calibration alternatively. The CLEAN deconvolution is a technique to deconvolve the visibility data to find the true sky brightness distribution of the target source by establishing a group of delta-function models. The self-calibration is an algorithm to reduce the difference between the models and visibility phase/amplitude using closure phase and closure amplitude. We should note that the amplitude-self-calibration can not be performed for the observations with three or less stations. Therefore, for the analysis of these KVN data, we did not perform amplitude-self-calibration. We evaluated the quality of the final map, by investigating the residual noise in the image as described in . We can quantitatively estimate the noise in the final CLEANed image based on the ratio of image noise rms to its mathematical expectation, $\xi_r$. Suppose that a residual image has an rms $\sigma_{\rm r}$ and a maximum absolute flux density $|s_{\rm r}|$. For Gaussian noise with a zero mean, the expectation of $s_{\rm r}$ is $$|s_{\rm {r,exp}}| = \\
\sigma_{\rm r} { \left[ \sqrt{2} \ln{\left( \frac{N_{\rm pix}}
{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{\rm r}} \right) }\right]}^{1/2} ,$$ where $N_{\rm pix}$ is the total number of pixels in the image. The ratio $\xi_r$ is given by $$\xi_{\rm r} = s_{\rm r} / s_{\rm {r,exp}}.$$ When the residual noise is similar to Gaussian noise, $\xi_{\rm r} \rightarrow 1$. If $\xi_{\rm r} > 1$, not all the structure has been adequately cleaned or recovered; if $\xi_{\rm r} < 1$, the image model obtained has an excessively large number of degrees of freedom. In order to compare quantitative information of the final images, we used circular Gaussian-component models to fit the self-calibrated data, yielding the following modelfit parameters: the total flux density $S_{\rm t}$, size $d$, radial distance $r$, and position angle $\theta$ of each component.

# Results

## Visibility Comparison with DiFX

After the calibration and data reduction, we compared the calibrated output of the Daejeon correlator with that of DiFX. For a careful comparison, we used the same parameters and data reduction procedures for the two cases, except for the correlator integration time (1.6384 s for Daejeon and 2.048 s for DiFX) and the delay models (a Mitaka delay model for Daejeon correlator and a CALC9 delay model for DiFX).

Figures - show the visibility amplitudes on the sources, 3C 454.3, 3C 345, and NRAO 512 for IF 2-14 and three KVN baselines from both correlators as a function of time. The whole frequency channel (128) data have been vector-averaged. We fitted the visibility amplitudes for each baseline with a first-order polynomial $V(t)=At+B$ using a linear least-squares method. The fitted models and averaged values are shown in Figures -. The averaged visibility amplitudes over IF 2-14 within full frequency channels and central 115 channels for individual baselines and sources are summarized in Table . In Table , we summarized the mean visibility amplitudes of IF 2-14 for two cases of using full frequency channels in IF and of using only central 115 channels. The visibility amplitudes of the target sources are in the range of 0.5–22 Jy. The visibility amplitudes for the Daejeon correlator seem relatively lower than those for DiFX. We found that the averaged visibility amplitudes of individual baselines for the Daejeon correlator are lower by $\leq8\%$ than those of DiFX for all sources and all baselines.

The amplitude difference between two correlators can be attributed mainly to an unusual pattern of the visibility amplitude of the Daejeon correlator, so called double-layer pattern, as clearly shown in Figure . The double-layer pattern consists of two main patterns at higher and lower amplitude values. One pattern is similar to that of DiFX (normal pattern). The other has lower values in amplitude than the main pattern and sometimes is similar to a sinusoidal pattern. For the baseline KU-KT in IF 2 in Figure , one third of the visibility data are along the level of about 16 Jy, and the remaining data are at about 18 Jy. For the baseline KU-KT in IF 7, one third of the visibility data show a sinusoidal pattern with its amplitude of about 2 Jy, that is about 15% of the flux density. The double-layer patterns appear different in IF (i.e., in frequency) and are present in all baselines and IF bands except for IF 8 and 9. Among the IF 2–14 for the baseline KU-KT, for IF 2–5 and IF 12–15 the double-layer patterns are shown as two parallel patterns, and for IF 6–7 and IF 10–11 the double-layer patterns appear like the sinusoidal pattern. The visibility amplitudes for IF 8 and 9 do not show such a double-layer pattern. It seems that the period of the sinusoidal pattern varies in time and frequency. The periods for IF 6 and 11 seems twice smaller than those for IF 7 and 10, respectively. We found also that there is a rough symmetric trend of the double-layer patterns between IF 2–8 and IF 9-15. This implies that the double-layer patterns may happen in a correlation stage related with frequency. The double-layer patterns are clearer for the observations of stronger sources like 3C 454.3 with a correlated flux density of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}20 Jy (Figure ), whereas they are less clear for relatively weaker sources like 3C 345 and NRAO 512 with flux densities of 1–4 Jy (Figures  and ). This is because the amplitude of the double-layer pattern is about 15% and it is similar to the amplitude calibration uncertainty of KVN observations at 22 GHz . However, the 8%-difference of visibility amplitudes between DiFX and the Daejeon correlator appears in all sources.

Figure  shows the visibility phases of the source 3C 454.3 for IF 2-14 and three KVN baselines from both correlators as a function of time. The whole frequency channel (128) data have been vector-averaged. We found that the visibility phases show small differences due to the different delay models used for the two correlators.

Figure  shows a comparison of the cross-correlated spectrum, i.e., the visibility amplitude and phases as a function of frequency in one 16 MHz band, IF 2. The spectra have been vector-averaged over one minute time range. The phases of the cross-correlated spectrum are consistent with each other within $\leq$`<!-- -->`{=html}2 degrees, whereas the amplitudes are different by about 10% on average. The amplitude difference varies in frequency. At the band edges, the difference gets larger, whereas at the band center, it becomes a bit smaller. This indicates that the spectrum shape of Daejeon correlator output is a bit different from that of DiFX.

```latex
\begin{table*}[t!]\caption{Comparison of visibility amplitudes\label{radplot}}
\centering
\resizebox{175mm}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{llcccccccc}
\toprule
       &            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$S_{\rm KU-KT}$} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{$S_{\rm KY-KU}$} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{$S_{\rm KT-KY}$} \\
\cline{3-4} \cline{6-7} \cline{9-10} \addlinespace
Source & Correlator & FULL BW & 115CH && FULL BW & 115CH && FULL BW& 115CH \\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) && (5) & (6) && (7) & (8) \\
\midrule
3C~454.3 & DiFX    & $20.2\pm0.547$ & $21.2\pm0.576$ & & $21.5\pm0.392$ & $22.6\pm0.413$ & & $21.0\pm0.554$ & $22.0\pm0.586$ \\
         & Daejeon & $18.8\pm1.04$  & $19.8\pm1.09$  & & $20.0\pm1.07$  & $21.1\pm1.13$  & & $19.4\pm1.17$  & $20.4\pm1.23$  \\
         & $S_{\rm Daejeon}/S_{\rm DiFX}$ & 0.93(1.9)& 0.93(1.9) & & 0.93(2.7) & 0.93(2.7) &&   0.92(2.1) & 0.93(2.1)\\ \addlinespace
%
3C~345   & DiFX    & $3.21\pm0.169$ & $3.37\pm0.181$ &&  $4.37\pm0.158$ & $4.59\pm0.170$ & & $3.26\pm0.167$ & $3.43\pm0.179$ \\
         & Daejeon & $2.93\pm0.236$ & $3.09\pm0.252$ &&  $3.99\pm0.291$ & $4.21\pm0.308$ & & $2.97\pm0.239$ & $3.13\pm0.255$   \\
         & $S_{\rm Daejeon}/S_{\rm DiFX}$ & 0.91(1.3)&  0.92(1.4)&&  0.91(1.84)&    0.92(1.8) & &0.91(1.4)& 0.91(1.4) \\  \addlinespace

NRAO~512 & DiFX    & $0.861\pm0.163$ & $0.908\pm0.176$ & & $0.858\pm0.140$ & $0.903\pm0.153$ & & $0.837\pm0.149$ & $0.881\pm0.161$   \\
         & Daejeon & $0.793\pm0.188$ & $0.839\pm0.203$ & & $0.792\pm0.169$ & $0.837\pm0.183$ & & $0.768\pm0.172$ & $0.812\pm0.186$  \\
         & $S_{\rm Daejeon}/S_{\rm DiFX}$ & 0.92(1.2)&  0.92(1.2)&  &0.92(1.2)  &0.93(1.2)&  &0.92(1.2) &0.92(1.2)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vskip6pt
\tabnote{
Column designation:
1~-~source name;
2~-~correlator;
3-9~-~mean of visibility amplitude for KU-KT, KY-KU,
and KT-KY in Jy,
or the ratio of the mean values for Daejeon to those for DiFX
with the ratio of their standard deviations in parentheses:
Columns 3,5,7 for values using data in full bandwidth
and Columns 4,6,8 for using data excluding first 6 channels and last 7 channels in each band (hence averaged over 115 channels).
}
\end{table*}
```

## Image Comparison with DiFX

In addition to the comparison of the visibility amplitudes and phases in time and frequency, we compared the imaging results from the two correlator outputs for all target sources, 3C 454.3, 3C 345, NRAO 512, and SgrA$^*$. As mentioned previously, we used the same procedure of imaging for the comparison: (a) fitting a point source to the visibility, (b) CLEAN and phase-self-calibration, and (c) modelfit with circular Gaussian components. In Figure , we compare CLEANed images for the DiFX and Daejeon correlators. We show the contour maps of each source for DiFX in the left panel, and those for Daejeon correlator in the right panel. There are circular Gaussian models on top of the contour maps. The $x$ and $y$ axes are in units of mas. The sources are 3C 454.3, 3C 345, NRAO 512, and SgrA$^*$ from top to bottom. For each contour map, the source name and the observation date are given in the upper left corner of the map. In the lower right corner of the map, we show the peak flux density and the lowest contour level in units of mJy. The shaded ellipse in the lower left corner of the map represents the FWHM of the restoring beam of the image. In all of the images, the contours are drawn at 1, 1.4, ..., $1.4^n$ (logarithmic spacing) of the lowest flux density level. In the right panel, we showed the visibility amplitudes as a function of the $uv$ radius. The $x$ axis of the plot represents the $uv$ radius in units of $10^6\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the observing wavelength, which is the length of the projected baseline used to obtain the visibility data. The $y$ axis of the plot shows the amplitude of each visibility point (i.e., correlated flux density) in units of Jy. The quality of the final images was investigated by estimating the quality of the residual noise, $\xi$, as described in Section . More detailed parameters of the images presented in Figure  are summarized in Table . For each image, Table  lists the source name, the parameters of the restoring beam (the size of the major axis, $B_{\rm maj}$, the minor axis, $B_{\rm min}$, and the position angle of the beam, $B_{\rm PA}$), the total flux density, $S_{\rm t}$, the peak flux density, $S_{\rm p}$, the off-source rms, $\sigma$, the dynamic range of the image, $D$, and the quality of the residual noise, $\xi$, for each image. The image results show that the total flux and peak flux densities for all sources are consistent within 8% for the two correlator outputs. The difference is similar to that of the visibility amplitude averaged for each baseline as summarized in Table . In order to investigate the flux differene in more detail, we made images using data for IF 8 and 9, for which the double-layer pattern does not appear in Figure . We compared the total and peak flux density for the images free of the double-layer-pattern, and found that their difference is on average about 5% for all sources, as summarized in Columns (11) and (12) of Table . This may indicate that a part of the total difference of 8% is caused by other differences between the two correlators that are not related with the double-layer pattern. We also compared the flux density, size, and position of the core and jet components of all sources using circular Gaussian model-fitting. Table  lists the parameters of each model-fit component: the total flux, $S_{\rm t}$, size, $d$, angular distance from the central component, $r$, and position angle, $\theta$ (the location of the jet component with respect to the core component). The modelfit parameters show that the total flux densities of core and jet components of almost all sources are again consistent within 8% for the two correlator outputs, whereas the sizes of the Gaussian components are different by $\le40$%. For 3C 454.3 and 3C 345, we were able to modelfit the jet components for the two correlator outputs with very consistent positions to each other.

```latex
\begin{table*}[t!]\caption{Comparison of imaging parameters\label{imagepar}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llcccccccccc}
\toprule
Source & Correlator & $B_{\rm maj}$ & $B_{\rm min}$ & $B_{\rm PA}$ & $S_{\rm t}$ & $S_{\rm p}$ & $\sigma$ & D & $\xi_{r}$ & $S_{\rm t,IF8-9}$ & $S_{\rm p,IF8-9}$ \\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12)\\
\midrule
3C~454.3 & DiFX    & 5.829 & 2.937 & -65.1 & 24.10        & 22.27       & 61.53  & 362 & 0.64 &24.17  &22.28\\
         & Daejeon & 5.835 & 2.939 & -65.1 & 22.26        & 20.71       & 57.12  & 363 & 0.76 &23.23  &21.41\\
         & $Daejeon/DiFX$ &-&-     & -     & 0.92         & 0.93        & 0.93   & 1.0 & -    &0.96   &0.96 \\ \addlinespace
3C~345   & DiFX    & 7.323 & 3.111 & -55.1 & 4.703        & 3.978       & 12.14  & 328 & 0.57 &4.656  &4.018 \\
         & Daejeon & 7.333 & 3.114 & -55.1 & 4.321        & 3.640       & 15.17  & 240 & 0.56 &4.390  &3.790 \\
         & $Daejeon/DiFX$ &-&-     & -     & 0.92         & 0.92        & 1.2    & 0.73& -    &0.94   &0.94\\ \addlinespace
NRAO~512 & DiFX    & 7.741 & 3.151 & -54.1 & 0.887        & 0.871       & 2.387  & 365 & 0.53 &0.897  &0.876\\
         & Daejeon & 7.746 & 3.153 & -54.1 & 0.818        & 0.797       & 2.884  & 276 & 0.53 &0.855  &0.829\\
         & $Daejeon/DiFX$ &-&-     & -     & 0.92         & 0.92        & 1.2    & 0.76& -    &0.95   &0.95 \\ \addlinespace
Sgr~${\rm A}^{*}$ &
         DiFX      & 7.033 & 4.493 & -33.5 & 1.011        & 0.822       & 5.023  & 164 & 0.88 &1.019  &0.828\\
         & Daejeon & 7.042 & 4.494 & -33.6 & 0.946        & 0.772       & 4.715  & 164 & 0.80 &0.988  &0.801\\
         & $Daejeon/DiFX$ &-&-     & -     & 0.94         & 0.94        & 0.94   & 1.0 & -    &0.97   &0.97 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\tabnote{
Column designation:
1~-~source name;
2~-~correlator;
3~-~major axis[mas];
4~-~minor axis[mas];
5~-~position angle of the major axis [$^{\circ}$] of the restoring beam;
6~-~total flux density [Jy];
7~-~peak flux density [Jy~beam$^{-1}$],
and the ratio of the total and peak flux densities of Daejeon correlator
to those of DiFX;
8~-~off-source RMS in the image [Jy~beam$^{-1}$];
9~-~Dynamic range of the image ($D=S_{\rm p}/\sigma$);
10~-~quality of the residual noise in the image;
11-12~-~total flux density [Jy] and peak flux density [Jy~beam$^{-1}$]
for images using data for IF 8 and 9.
}
\end{table*}
```
```latex
\begin{table*}[t!]\caption{Comparison of model fit parameters\label{modelpar}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
%\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
%\tablewidth{0pt}
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$S_{\rm t}$} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{$d$} && \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\theta$} \\
\cline{2-3} \cline{5-6} \cline{8-9} \cline{10-11} \addlinespace

Source & DiFX & Daejeon & $\frac{S_{\rm Daejeon}}{S_{\rm DiFX}}$ & DiFX & Daejeon &$\frac{d_{Daejeon}}{d_{\rm DiFX}}$& DiFX & Daejeon & DiFX & Daejeon\\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11)\\
\midrule
3C~454.3 &  22.4   &  20.8   &0.93& 0.315 & 0.199&0.63 & -    & - & -  & - \\
         &  0.872  &  0.835  &0.96& 1.59  & 1.48 &0.93 & 4.05 & 3.83 & -113 & -127\\
         &  0.780  &  0.624  &0.80& 3.11  & 2.73 &0.88 & 7.21 & 6.14 & -68.5& -78.2\\ \addlinespace
%        &  20.8   &0.93& 0.199  &0.63& - & - \\
%        &  0.835  &0.96& 1.48   &0.93& 3.83 & -127 \\
%        &  0.624  &0.80& 2.73   &0.88& 6.14 & -78.2 \\ \addlinespace
3C~345   &  4.00   &  3.67   &0.92 & 0.421  & 0.406  &0.96 & -   & -    & -     & - \\
         &  0.702  &  0.648  &0.92 & 2.00   & 2.07   &1.0  & 5.72& 5.66 & -86.2 & -86.4\\\addlinespace
%        &  3.67   &0.92& 0.406  &0.96& - & - \\
%        &  0.648  &0.92& 2.07   &1.0 & 5.66 & -86.4 \\ \addlinespace
NRAO~512 &  0.887  &  0.818  &0.92 & 0.537 & 0.628  &1.2 & - & - & - & - \\ \addlinespace
%        &  0.818  &0.92& 0.628  &1.2& - & - \\\addlinespace
Sgr~${\rm A}^{*}$ &
         1.01   &  0.946  &0.94 & 2.58 & 2.56   &0.99 & - & -& - & - \\
%        &  0.946  &0.94& 2.56   &0.99& - & - \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\tabnote{
Column designation:
1~-~source name;
2-3~-~model flux density of the component[Jy];
4~-~ratio of the model flux density of Daejeon correlator to that of the DiFX;
5-6~-~size of the component[mas];
7~-~ratio of the model size of the Daejeon correlator to that of DiFX;
8-9~-~angular distance from the central component[mas];
10-11~-~position angle[$^{\circ}$];
}
\end{table*}
```

# Discussion

## Double-Layer Patterns

The most prominent, apparent difference between correlation outputs from the Daejeon and DiFX correlators is the double-layer patterns as shown in Figure . The double-layer patterns vary in IF (i.e., in frequency) and are present in almost all baselines including KVN (and also VERA stations). When we investigated the visibility amplitude of 3C 454.3 for all baselines of KVN and VERA, we found that the amplitudes for all baselines show the double-layer patterns, except for baselines with larger scatter (e.g., Ishigaki-KVN). For VERA baselines, the double-layer patterns consist of two parallel patterns, and for KVN baselines we see clearly sinusoidal patterns, as discussed above. This is consistent with the results for the KVN baselines of fainter sources.

It is important to investigate possible reasons causing the double-layer pattern and to improve the performance of the Daejeon correlator. A detailed investigation of the reasons behind the double-layer pattern is underway by the KJCC engineering team and will be reported elsewhere. Here we offer a brief discussion of possible ways this pattern can be produced. Possible reasons include the following:

-   **Fringe rotation error**. The plot of the visibility as a function of time shows very periodic patterns, which may indicate some fundamental problem in the correlator: for example, the delay shifter or the phase rotator is not updated as it should. However, as the pattern appears only in the amplitude, it may not be the case. Moreover, same patterns are seen on two separate channels: IF3=IF14, IF4=IF13, IF5=IF12, IF6=IF11,IF7=IF10. IF8 and IF9 are both OK, IF2 has no match, and IF1 is not plotted. Since these matching channels have different frequencies, the fringe rotator is not the problem.

-   **Timing problem between normalization and accumulation**. By looking at the plot more closely, we found that some integration intervals may have lost part of the data. The integration time of 1.6384 s for the Daejeon correlator is so unusual that may modulate with other time in the correlator system. Integer number of seconds of integration time, or shorter intervals, would give better results. It is possible that the IF pattern mentioned above can be compared with the order in which the control computer gets the data from the hardware. We found that this problem does not affect the correlation ouput of DiFX since there is no data loss on the normalization and accumulation in DiFX with the time interval of 2.048 s.

-   **Problem with the geometry applied in the correlator**. The period of the sinusoidal pattern of the double-layer patterns seems to vary in time and in frequency. This could indicate that there is a problem with the geometry applied in the correlator. The correlation output of VLBI observations with a finite bandwidth $\Delta\nu$ is $r\propto \frac{sin\pi\Delta\nu\tau_g}{\pi\Delta\nu\tau_g}
    cos(2\pi\nu_0\tau_g-\phi)$, where $\tau_g$ is the geometric delay and $\nu_0$ is the observing frequency . The amplitude of the correlation output is modulated by a sinc-function envelope as $\frac{sin\pi\Delta\nu\tau_g}{\pi\Delta\nu\tau_g}$. Usually the modulation is well modeled by the geometric model used during the correlation. However, if there is an error in geometry, i.e., $\Delta\tau = \tau_g-\tau_m$, where $\tau_m$ is the geometric time delay of the geometric model, then we may expect a periodic pattern in the amplitude of the correlation output equal to $\frac{sin\pi\Delta\nu\Delta\tau_g}{\pi\Delta\nu\Delta\tau_g}$. If this is the case, the sinusoidal pattern may correlate with the baseline length. However it is hard to tell wether we see the correlation in the KVN observations, since the baseline length of KVN is in the range of 305-477 km. Moreover, the geometric problem should affect the phase of the correlation output as $cos(2\pi\nu_0\tau_g-\phi)$. Since we see no prominent difference in phases between Daejeon and DiFX correlators, we can exclude this possibility.

Although the amplitude of the double-layer patterns is as large as 10-15% the final effect to the flux density in the CLEANed image is less than 8% (maybe 3%, see below) because the visibility data are averaged in time and frequency for the final imaging. However this effect should be investigated more carefully with further test observations in various observing modes (e.g., full track imaging mode). Since the comparison in this paper used the observations with short integration times of 10-20 min (75min for SgrA$^*$), we have an uncertainty in imaging results. The image quality values of $\xi_{\rm r}$ of the final images are in the range of 0.53-0.88.

## Fringe Tracking

We found that part (5%) of the total difference of 8% in flux density between the two correlators are caused by other reasons which are not related with the double-layer pattern. investigated the performance of the hardware correlator developed for the VLBI Space Observatory Programme (VSOP) and found that the loss of visibility amplitude due to the hardware phase tracking is 4%. The loss almost corresponds to the 5% difference in flux density of images using the double-layer-pattern free data (i.e., data for IF 8 and 9). For the Daejeon correlator, the fringe tracking is done in VCS in the same way as described in . So a major part of the 5% degradation in hardware correlation may come from the difference in the way of fringe phase tracking. The additional 1% of the difference can be attributed to other reasons (e.g., bit-jump correction).

# Conclusions

We evaluated the performance of a new hardware correlator in Korea, the Daejeon correlator, by conducting KVN VLBI observations at 22 GHz. We correlated the acquired data with DiFX and the Daejeon correlator for comparing the visibility data and imaging results. The flux densities and brightness distributions of the target sources for the two correlators are consistent with each other within $<8\%$. The difference is comparable with the amplitude calibration uncertainties of KVN observations at 22 GHz. We also found that the 8% difference in flux density is caused mainly by (a) the difference in the way of fringe phase tracking between the DiFX software correlator and the Daejeon hardware correlator, and (b) an unusual pattern (a double-layer pattern) in the amplitude correlation output from the Daejeon correlator. The visibility amplitude loss by the double-layer pattern is as small as 3%. We conclude that the new hardware correlator produces reasonable correlation outputs for continuum observations which are consistent with the outputs from the software correlator, DiFX.

We thank Walter Alef, David Graham, and Alan Whitney for their fruitful discussion on the performance of the Daejeon correlator. We would like to thank the anonymous referee for important comments and suggestions which have enormously improved the manuscript. We are grateful to all staff members in KVN who helped to operate the array and to correlate the data. The KVN is a facility operated by the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute. The KVN operations are supported by KREONET (Korea Research Environment Open NETwork) which is managed and operated by KISTI (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information).

[^1]: <http://kjcc.kasi.re.kr>

[^2]: <http://fuse.sourceforge.net>