abstract: Network models of language have provided a way of linking cognitive processes to language structure. However, current approaches focus only on one linguistic relationship at a time, missing the complex multi-relational nature of language. In this work, we overcome this limitation by modelling the mental lexicon of English-speaking toddlers as a multiplex lexical network, i.e. a multi-layered network where N=529 words/nodes are connected according to four relationships: (i) free association, (ii) feature sharing, (iii) co-occurrence, and (iv) phonological similarity. We investigate the topology of the resulting multiplex and then proceed to evaluate single layers and the full multiplex structure on their ability to predict empirically observed age of acquisition data of English speaking toddlers. We find that the multiplex topology is an important proxy of the cognitive processes of acquisition, capable of capturing emergent lexicon structure. In fact, we show that the multiplex structure is fundamentally more powerful than individual layers in predicting the ordering with which words are acquired. Furthermore, multiplex analysis allows for a quantification of distinct phases of lexical acquisition in early learners: while initially all the multiplex layers contribute to word learning, after about month 23 free associations take the lead in driving word acquisition.
author: Massimo Stella; Nicole M. Beckage; Markus Brede
bibliography: biblu3.bib
title: Multiplex lexical networks reveal patterns in early word acquisition in children

Language consists of a multi-level mapping of meanings onto words . In order to communicate, humans must learn how to use linguistic structures to express thoughts as words. The cognitive processes behind language learning may organise the components of language into a so-called *mental lexicon* (ML) . This lexicon can be described as a network structure of interacting lexical items (e.g. word representations). Empirical studies in psycholinguistics suggest that, rather than providing exact word definitions (as in common dictionaries), the ML stores word meanings as multi-relational or multiplex word patterns . How the multiplex organisation of the ML relates to and influences language learning is still poorly understood but new techniques related to multiplex networks allow us to explore patterns of word acquisition within the mental lexicon. We achieve this by constructing an edge-coloured multiplex network based on relational features of phonology, semantics, and syntax. Going beyond the topological description of the multiplex network, we exploit the multiplex structure to predict normative acquisition of young children.

Previous literature on modelling language learning and use through network science has largely focused on single-layer representations of networks . We build on these works, that strongly suggest that many cognitive constraints and mechanisms affecting the use of language can be explored through network science. In fact, experimental results have shown strong correlations between network structure and human performance in various language related tasks. Measurements of retrieval times , age of acquisition , creativity and even semantic degradation due to ageing have been studied and modeled using single layer networks. Further, networks of phonological word similarities have highlighted an upper bound on the size of phonological neighbourhoods as well as a tendency to avoid local clustering . Experiments with adults have indicated that these constraints relate to word confusability in identification tasks .

While single layer networks reveal aspects of the structure of language and language-related cognitive processes, it is clear that this approach cannot offer a unified view of language that simultaneously accounts for phonological, semantic and syntactic aspects of language, as required by increasingly sophisticated experimental set ups . One approach that is capable of overcoming this limitation is to use multiplex network representations as originally introduced in the social sciences . Within this approach, we project the complexity of an individual's mental lexicon (ML) onto a multiplex network, which we call *Multiplex Lexical Network* (MLN). Our MLN is composed of multiple network layers, with nodes representing words and layers capturing different relationships between words. Multiplex networks are a specific type of multi-layer networks where nodes represent the same set of items on all layers. In our MLN we do not consider inter-layer connections. Instead we focus on intra-layer relationships that have previously been shown to influence children's lexical learning in single-layer network studies: 1) free-associations , 2) shared features , 3) co-occurrence in child directed speech and 4) phonological similarity . We quantitatively show that by understanding the structure of multiple layers of the ML we can gain further insight into human cognition as related to language acquisition in young toddlers.

The main advantage of the multiplex approach is that it allows for a more detailed representation and quantification of many real-world systems . This added model complexity provides additional insights into a system's structure and dynamics. In the last few years multiplex modelling has provided novel insights in areas as diverse as social balance in on-line platforms , emergence and stability of multiculturalism , congestion in transportation networks , and ecosystems in ecology , cf. for a review on multi-layer and multiplex networks.

The multiplex network approach relates to other works in psycholinguistics investigating language via multi-layer networks. Liu et al. analysed Chinese as a multi-layer network, composed of syntactic and phonemic layers. They found that almost half of the syntactic dependency relations are between phonologically similar words. A similar analysis was performed for English and Croatian establishing language specific relationships between syntax and phonology . However, these studies consider only topological features of a given language representation. We extend this approach by explicitly considering the interaction of topological features with a cognitive dynamical process, i.e. for exploring language acquisition in young children.

Below, we consider the ability of structural network features to account for normative acquisition trajectories. We evaluate performance using empirical parent reports of toddlers' productive speech, aggregated to capture the order of word learning for children between 16 and 30 months . Our aim is to assess the predictive power of a multiplex lexicon representation to capture emerging features and possible mechanisms of word acquisition in young children. As it currently stands, our model is solely descriptive: it only approximates importance of words from observational data rather than inferring it from a generative Bayesian framework . However, we demonstrate that our multiplex model is more accurate than any single layer representation in predicting the normative acquisition trajectories of young children. We find that the multiplex network can account for developmental trends, offering predictions and interpretability that analysis based on single layer networks or word specific measures such as frequency or length cannot.

# Results

## Multiplex network construction and analysis

We first construct a multiplex lexical network composed of four layers capturing i) free associations from the South Florida association norms , (ii) feature sharing from the McRae et al. dataset , (iii) co-occurrence in child-directed speech from the CHILDES dataset , and (iv) phonological similarities from WordNet 3.0 (cf. Methods and SI Sect. 2). Hence the resulting MLN properties emerge from the assembly of independent measures rather than from a multiplex network design. Figures  (a) and (b) provide a visualisation of the links in each of the four MLN layers. Panel (a) treats each layer as separate whereas panel (b) describes the multiplex as an edge-coloured graph , in which different colours denote different relationships. As evident from (a) and (b), even if words might be disconnected on one layer, they could be connected on the MLN structure.

We report single-layer summary statistics and comparison to configuration models (i.e. random graphs preserving the degrees of an empirical network ) in Table . We focus on network features already analysed in previous works : degree, clustering, degree mixing, connectivity ratio and mean shortest path length. For instance, the degree of a node counts its connections and on the phonological layer, it coincides with the size of its phonological neighbourhood . See Methods and SI Sect. S3 for precise definitions and interpretations.

Tab.  shows that the phonological layer has a smaller mean degree compared to other layers. Furthermore, apart from the association layer all other layers are highly fragmented. Their largest connected components include between 24.2% and 62.4% of the 529 words. These percentages quantify how many words could be reached from each other by navigating through links on individual layers. In contrast, the *multiplex network* is connected – every pair of words is connected by a path that potentially exploits different relationship types. Compared to configuration models, except for the co-occurrence layer all other layers display higher clustering, non-zero assortativity and slightly larger path length in their largest connected component. In agreement with previous work these patterns suggest that the MLN layers display a core-periphery structure. From a cognitive perspective this feature might possibly facilitate navigation from word to word within cores (see SI Sect. S3 for further discussion). Layers also differ in their degree distributions, see SI Fig. S2: they are exponential-like for the synonym and phonological layers but much more heavy-tailed for the co-occurrence and association layers. Heavy tails indicate the presence of network hubs, i.e. words which are significantly more connected than average. These hub words play a central role for navigation through concept space and could therefore be good candidates for earlier acquisition.

Is it appropriate to represent the ML in terms of four separate layers or can we get the same type of topological information with fewer layers? Structural reducibility analysis can test if multiplex layers can be aggregated without losing information (see SI for details). Results reported in Fig.  (e) show that aggregation cannot be performed without information loss, demonstrating that the chosen 4-layer representation is in fact *irreducible* . This is not to say that each layer plays a role in language acquisition, just that the information encoded in each layer is different from all other layers.

Before turning to modeling word acquisition, we investigate the MLN structure in more detail. Specifically, Fig.  (c) analyses the similarity between degrees of a word on different layers. We find that words in the feature and co-occurrence layers tend to have negative degree correlations (Kendall Tau $\kappa \approx -0.16, p<0.0001$), indicating that hubs in one layer tend to have lower degrees in the other layers. This may suggest a type of semantic differentiation in English in which words that have similar features tend to not be used in close proximity of each other, at least when speaking to young children. In contrast, the co-occurrence and phonological layers display positive degree correlations (Kendall Tau $\kappa \approx 0.27, p<0.0001$): in the children's lexicon, words having many co-occurrences also have larger phonological neighbourhoods, further supporting the idea that phonological similarities and co-occurrences in child directed speech influence each other .

Another question of interest is to what extent links overlap across layers. This can be quantified by edge overlap (or multiplexity ). Results are reported in Fig.  (d). As expected, we find some overlap between connections in the feature, co-occurrence and association layers; these layers capture semantic aspects of the ML. Beyond the overlap between these layers, links tend not to overlap significantly more than one would expect in configuration model across the other layers. This suggests that different MLN layers tend to capture different relational aspects of the ML, again emphasising that the MLN is a more complete model than single network representations. We now explore the importance of individual layers and of the MLN as a whole in explaining acquisition trajectories.

```latex
\begin{table*} % tab:1{{{
\footnotesize
\caption{Metrics for the MLN layers with $N=529$ nodes, listing mean degree $\left\langle k \right\rangle$, mean clustering coefficient $CC$, assortativity coefficient $a$, percentage of nodes in the largest connected component $Conn.$, and mean shortest path length of the largest connected component $\left\langle
d\right\rangle$. The quantities are measured for the layers of the MLN and for randomized equivalents with the same degree sequences (denoted with CM). Error bars represent standard deviations and are reported in brackets behind the last significant digit.}
\label{tab:1} % Give a unique label
\begin{tabular}{p{3cm}p{0.5cm}p{0.5cm}p{0.8cm}p{0.8cm}p{0.8cm}|p{0.9cm}p{1.1cm}p{1.4cm}p{1.1cm}}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Empirical Network & $\left\langle k \right\rangle$ & $CC$ & $a$ & $Conn.$ & $\left\langle d\right\rangle$ & $CC\,(CM)$ & $a\,(CM)$ & \textit{Conn.} (CM) & $\left\langle d\right\rangle \,(CM)$\\
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\rule{0pt}{1em}Associations (Asso.) & 9.3  & 0.20  & -0.1 & 99.6\% & 3.2 &  0.03(1) &  $-0.01(6)$ &  99.6\% & 3.00(1)\\
\rule{0pt}{1em}Feature Norms (Feat.)    & 9.0 & 0.63 & -0.01 & 24.2\% & 1.8 &  0.38(2) & $-0.07(6)$  &  24.2\% & 1.72(1) \\
\rule{0pt}{1em}Co-occurrences (Co-occ.) & 8.1 & 0.69 & -0.44 & 62.4\% & 2.2 & 0.75(3)&  $-0.40(2)$ & 62.4\% & 2.19(1) \\
\rule{0pt}{1em}Phonological Sim (Phon.) & 1.31 & 0.37  &  0.48 & 33.1\% & 7.7 & 0.02(1) & $0.03(2)$ & 45.5\%(8) & 5.31(7) \\
\rule{0pt}{1em}Multiplex Aggregate      & 26.5 & 0.33 & -0.07 & 100\% & 2.4 & 0.18(5) &  $-0.10(8)$ & 100\% & 2.25(1) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
```

## Multiplex Orderings: Results and Discussion

Here we explore the process of word learning through the MLN assuming a preferential acquisition scenario , where words are learned earlier if they are central in the language environment. We assume that relevance of the language environment can be summarised by connectivity in a language network rather than making assumptions on the statistics of relationships to infer relevance, as is more standard in a Bayesian approach .

We generate a word acquisition ordering $\tau$ by ranking words according to measures computed on the MLN. We assume that if one ranking is predictive, it would indicate that the feature generating it is relevant to early language learning. We compare MLN-based orderings to those based on non-relational, word-specific information such as word frequency and word length. For consistency with the literature, we investigated features previously considered in linguistic networks such as word degree , closeness , betweenness and PageRank . For more details see Methods and SI Sect. S6.

We compare our orderings against an ensemble of empirical age of acquisition orderings, obtained from a probabilistic interpretation of the normative age of acquisition of words based on the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) and over a population of roughly 1000 toddlers (see Methods). The comparison is performed by computing the average word overlap $O(\tau,t)$ of ordering $\tau$ with normative orderings, namely how many words $\tau$ correctly predicts as learned until the inventory includes $t$ words. Word *gains* are then obtained by subtracting $O(\tau,t)$ from the expected number of correctly predicted words by random guessing (see Methods and SI Sect. S6). Word gains are normalised by the inventory size $t$ and their Z-scores relative to statistics from random guesses are estimated. Positive *vocabulary normalised word gain* indicates better than random performance of ordering $\tau$ and negative values indicate performance inferior to random guessing.

Fig.  reports normalised word gains (a) and their Z-scores (b) for the best performing orderings from our analysis. No ordering always outperforms the others: we notice shifts in which word features are the most relevant for different periods of word learning. This agrees with the idea that the progression of acquisition changes over the course of development: children learn some initial words and then tend to generalise those words based on network connectivity later, i.e. preferential acquisition . This cognitive interpretation of the observed shifts at different acquisition stages allow us to distinguish at least three distinct learning phases. In a first stage, comprising months 19 and 20, which we call the *very early learning stage* (VELS), we are trying to predict the first 40 learned words (grey overlays in Fig. ). Direct sampling for this period indicates that our results are below the 2.5% threshold for statistical significance – the network appears to contain little information relevant for predicting acquisition. This phase is followed by an *early learning stage* (ELS) covering an age range between 20 and 23 months. This phase is characterised by *closeness centrality outmatching* every other ordering (see also SI Sect. S6). Last we discriminate a *late learning stage* (LLS) comprising ages between 23 and 28 months. During this stage the dominant hub words have already been learned and more localized structure is likely affecting learning. LLS is characterised by degrees in the association layer and frequency performing equally to or slightly better than closeness and other word features (cf. SI Sect. S6).

Interestingly, while previous work has found frequency to be a good predictor for normative age of acquisition , results in Fig.  suggest that word length and some topological network information are more predictive of early acquisition ordering. Good performance is achieved by word length in ELS, possibly because of a *least effort effect* that suggests that short words are easier to memorise and learn. This hypothesis is also supported by the observation that word length loses its predictive power at later learning stages (word gain Z-scores are compatible with random fluctuations after 300 words have been learned). We interpret this happens when more sophisticated learning strategies are being used. One of them might be mediated by degree orderings. Among the four layers, ordering words according to their degree in the association layer gives the best performance and it can be up to 100% more predictive than random guessing (cf. SI Fig. S7). This confirms previous results suggesting that association norms are generally good predictive models for early language learning . We conjecture associations perform well in our case because they are strongly related with semantic memory .

Previous work has pointed out that in early learning, during VELS and ELS, it is very difficult to outperform random guessing because children may not have a clear strategy for learning new words early in language acquisition . Instead here we find that better than random prediction is possible even in very early learning stages, at least for normative acquisition. Using the multiplex closeness of words it is possible to predict up to 160% words more than at random (cf. SI Fig. S7) and up to 25% more than by using degrees in the association layer (cf. SI Fig. S8). As reported in SI Sect. S6, we checked that multiplex closeness consistently outperforms every single-layer orderings during early learning stages. This is a promising result in that multiplex approaches may allow us to quantify learning strategies in toddlers. Also other multiplex measures such as versatile PageRank perform up to 10% better than degrees in the association layer (cf. SI Fig. S8). The enhanced prediction ability of multiplex features indicates that the multiplex representation of the ML captures meaningful influences of multiple types of feature representations. Altogether, we can conclude that early learning is strongly related to the multiplex structure, specifically the closeness of words considering *all* layers that form the MLN.

Results for the LLS show a reversal of trends. Here we find that a single layer based on association degree ordering gives best predictability. Global and local multiplex measures, as well as word specific features such as word frequency, perform similarly or slightly worse until 400 words have been learned (see Fig  and SI Fig. S8). This indicates that preferential acquisition is very important, but at this point in development the dominant relevant relationships are those captured by the association layer. This is compatible with the observed emergence of semantic learning in children . However it has to be noticed that statistical significance deteriorates markedly during later stages of learning making comparisons of performance in the LLS difficult.

So far, we evaluated orderings based on single network layers and the combined multiplex, showing that prediction performance can benefit from taking account of information from multiple layers. In this analysis we assumed that each layer plays an equal role. In the next section we evaluate the changing influence of layers during the evolution of the lexicon.

## Optimisation of layer influences

To explore the influence of different layers on word acquisition, we consider linear combinations of word features on each layer in order to obtain weighted multiplex measures (cf. Methods section). For a given network metric, we optimise the coefficients of the linear combinations to maximise vocabulary normalised word gains. The resulting layer weights, that maximise predictability, indicate the influence of the respective layers on word acquisition. We explored several types of optimisation, based on degree, closeness, betweenness and local clustering (cf. SI Sect. S7 and SI Tab. S3). We focus on the two best performing quantities from the ordering experiments, namely degree and closeness.

In order to avoid over-fitting, we perform a Monte Carlo robustness analysis: we optimise over subsets of word trajectories sampled uniformly at random, consisting of only 80% of the original words. Averages are computed over these trajectories and over different realisations of the age of acquisition trajectories from the normative age of acquisition ordering. We also confirmed that the improvement in performance of optimised multiplex parameters is strongly dependent on the structure and overlap of layers, as experiments on randomised multiplex networks result in far smaller word gains (see SI Sect. S8).

Optimisation results (cf. Fig. ) indicated negligible contribution of the phonological layer, with weights ($\approx ~ 10^{-3}$). Degree and closeness orderings based only on the phonological layer perform poorly as well, yielding word gains compatible with random fluctuations at a 5% significance level (see SI Sect. S6.1 and SI Fig. S5). We retrieved the same optimisation results for the other layers when the phonological layer was excluded. In addition, we considered phonological word scores coming from an "extended" phonological layer for adults, already analysed by Stella and Brede and including 30000 words (see also SI Sect. S6.1.1). Assessing the influence of adults' phonology over word acquisition in toddlers matches previous approaches in the relevant literature and we present results in our MLN framework in Fig. but also in SI Sect. S7.

Optimal layer influences are displayed as a function of age for the MLN layers in Fig. (c) and (d). Similar patterns of layer influence are found for rankings based on both degree and closeness. We see a clear distinction between different learning stages. When degree is considered, cf. Fig. (c), in VELS the main layer contributions stem from the association and the feature norm layers. Instead, when optimising closeness, cf. Fig. (d), in VELS all layers are found to contribute equally. In both cases the ELS, the next learning stage, marks a transition region between the VELS (before) and the LLS (after) in which only the association layer dominates. This transition is what motivated our choice of distinguishing between VELS and ELS. For degree-based optimisations, contributions from the co-occurrence layer become very small in the LLS, while associations contribute 80% of weight. An analogous transition is observed in the ELS phase when closeness is optimised and after that associations make up 80% of the total layer influence. The dominant influence of associations in later stages of learning is indicative of the emergence of preferential acquisition that we already observed in ordering experiments.

When extended phonology is considered, in Fig. (e) and (f), the influences of semantic layers remain consistent, however, phonology has a higher impact when phonological neighbourhood size/degree is considered rather than closeness. In VELS the extended phonology has importances similar to co-occurrences but the influence of both approaches 0 later in development.

In Fig. (a) and (b) we compare vocabulary normalised word gains of trajectories based on optimal layer influences against our ordering experiments (cf. SI Fig. S9 for the respective Z-scores and previous section). On the one hand, when predicting only words learned in VELS, the optimal influence orderings outmatch both degree in the association layer and multiplex closeness during VELS but perform worse at later stages. Direct sampling indicates that these results are significant with a p-value of $0.01$. Optimal influences up to the middle of ELS and LLS provide similar word gains, which are both up to 25% higher than the optimal word gains from VELS. This suggests that the *same learning strategies* may be adopted *after* VELS, starting in ELS and lasting throughout LLS. On the other hand, results in Fig.  (a) highlight the importance of closeness centrality for predicting word acquisition at early stages. In fact, in ELS even the optimal linear combination of degrees results in *smaller word gains* compared to the unweighted multiplex closeness centrality. Optimal linear combinations of closeness perform even better than the unweighted multiplex closeness, see Fig.  (b). Notice that closeness is a *global* network feature, accounting for the position of a node relative to all other nodes. This is distinct from *local* features, such as degree, which only measure a node's relationship to its first neighbours. Our findings give support to the hypothesis that, particularly in the early learning stages, word learning is influenced by the global structure of the multiplex lexical network. This global multiplex structure is able to capture some important word patterns that influence early lexicon development.

# Conclusions and future work

Introducing the framework of *multiplex lexical networks* (MLN), we have described and analysed normative word acquisition patterns of children between the ages of 19 and 28 months. Our approach considers semantic, phonological and syntactic contexts and captures more linguistic information than separate analysis of any single layer network previously could . We go beyond a purely topological description by exploiting network properties to predict the order of normative word learning in children. Interestingly, we find that the best topological feature in predicting word learning changes through the course of development. This allows us to use network information to distinguish three stages of learning: (i) a very early learning stage where all but the phonological layer contribute substantially to prediction, (ii) an early learning stage which marks a transition period, and (iii) a late learning stage in which contribution from word associations dominates word learning. We believe the last point is due to free associations serving as a much better proxy for detecting superordinate words compared to other network features (cf. SI Sect. 6.3 for a quantitative discussion). Further assessment of the extent to which the taxonomic organization serves as a mediator variable influencing word prediction is an interesting direction for future work.

Comparing the predictive power of various MLN features over time confirms: (i) the superiority of some multiplex network characteristics relative to single layer networks and word specific measures such as frequency or word length, and (ii) the special role closeness centrality might play in early word learning. This is emphasised in two ways: (i) strong performance of multiplex closeness, outperforming all combinations of local network features in the early learning phase, and (ii) the best overall predictions of the order words are learned is related to a weighted multiplex version of single-layer closeness centralities. We thus find strong indications that, particularly at early stages of learning, word acquisition in children is driven by minimising relational distances of learned words relative to other words in both the semantic and syntactic space of the mental lexicon.

With the MLN, we explored questions about normative lexical acquisition, uncovering developmental learning stages and quantifying the influence of certain types of linguistic information on early acquisition. Nevertheless, our MLN is limited in important ways. It is important to bear in mind that the MLN representation is only a projection of an individual child's full ML. Additionally, the results presented in this paper consider normative lexical acquisition. That is to say, a specific child may not learn words in the same order as the normative orderings. Instead normative order is obtained by averaging over roughly 1000 productive vocabulary reports. We attempt to address this shortcoming by sampling multiple orders probabilistically from these norms. Extending the model and testing the universality of the learning strategies in VELS and ELS on longitudinal data for individual children would be an interesting future research direction .

Another limitation is the use of a relatively small vocabulary. While the CDI is a commonly used check list of words a child produces, there are many words that a child may know which are not on the CDI. By expanding our model to the full vocabulary of a child, and for longer periods of development, we can further increase our understanding of word learning.

While the present study focuses on word learning in English, results should be corroborated by considering word learning in different languages. Future work can extend our analysis by considering correlations in word learning across other cognitive and linguistic domains to build an even richer picture of language organisation and learning than presented here. A stream of work in psycholinguistics has explored detailed mechanisms of word learning . Such work typically explores how words are memorised when clues are presented in different order and focuses on the underlying mechanisms of inferring meaning-object mappings, pointing out that learning is strongly dependent on context. Integrating context-dependent information in our MLN framework would surely be an exciting future research direction for investigating individual children's learning trajectories.

The marginal influence of the original phonological layer found in this study can be reconciled with previous findings. Dautriche *et al.* showed that 18 months old toddlers failed to learn an object label when it was a phonological neighbour of a noun they already knew. In our dataset 80% of words learned by toddlers within the first two months are nouns. This noun-richness is in opposition with orderings extracted from phonological degree and closeness, which identify mainly non-noun words, verbs in particular, as learned initially. This trend is not surprising, as having learned a verb earlier makes it easier for toddlers to learn its phonological neighbours . However, this contrast in noun-richness at early development stages reflects in the poor performance of the original phonological layer in predicting normative acquisition ordering. Nonetheless, we show that phonology influences word acquisition by considering a phonological network extended to the adults' lexicon, like in . This extended layer identifies nouns as early candidates for learning and provides significant prediction results. This interplay between phonology and acquisition is in agreement with previous findings in the relevant literature .

We have shown strong evidence that multiplex lexical networks capture a richer picture of the mental lexicon than previous works using only single-layer networks, in spite of the above limitations. More importantly, this work provides novel formalised methods for exploring and explaining the influence of linguistic features on early acquisition.

# Methods

### Age of acquisition dataset

Age of acquisition orderings are constructed based on the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) norms . The CDI, based on parent report of the productive vocabulary of children aged between 16 and 30 months, has been shown to be related to future language ability in young children . The norms are averaged over more than 1000 vocabulary reports and indicate the percentage of children, at a given age, that reportedly produce (and understand) a specific word. From these norms, we sample orderings of word learning. For example, "mommy" and "ball" are reported as produced by 93% and 64% of children by 16 months, respectively; these words are (usually) learned earlier than "chair" which is produced by only 14% of 16 month olds. We assume a word is known once 50% of children in a given month produce that word. We then sample an order of words learned within a month assuming that higher rates of production probabilistically indicate earlier learning. Starting from position one of the ranking, we: (i) sample a learned word with probability proportional to the percentage of children which are able to produce it, conditioned on the overall production rate being over 50%, (ii) erase it from the list of candidate words to be learned at later positions and (iii) proceed one position down in the ranking and start from (i). The sampling starts from month 16 and it stops when every word has been sampled. Note that a non-probabilistic version of this ordering has been used in other developmental modelling contexts .

### Construction of the multiplex network

The four layers of the MLN were selected because of their use in previous single-layer network studies investigating word learning of young children . The four layers we consider here are (i) a semantic layer based on the Florida Free Association Norms where a link exists from word A to word B if word B is a free associate of the cue word A; (ii) a layer capturing feature similarity based on the McRae Feature Norms where words A and B are connected if they share at least one semantic feature; (iii) a layer based on word co-occurrences (measured in child-directed speech ) where words A and B are connected if they co-occur more than 45 times, where the threshold 45 was chosen approximately to match the link density of the other semantic layers; and a (iv) layer capturing phonological similarities (based on IPA transcription from WordNet 3.0 ) where words A and B are connected if they have IPA transcriptions with edit distance one. We treat the association layer as undirected and edge weights in layers (i) to (iii) are ignored. The resulting MLN is composed of 529 words which represent the intersection between the CDI data and the set of words which have at least one connection on any layer (see SI).

### Cognitive interpretation of network metrics

We investigate the same local and global features of words/nodes that were investigated in previous works about network representations of language: degree, closeness, betweenness and PageRank (see SI). In a given network, the degree of a node is the number of its links . In our MLN, a word is characterised by one degree measure per layer. For instance, on the association layer a word with degree $k^{(Asso.)}$ has $k^{(Asso.)}$ associates. On the phonological layer the degree of a word coincides with its phonological neighbourhood size : a word with degree $k^{(Phon.)}$ has $k^{(Phon.)}$ similar sounding words. Higher degree words in semantic networks were found to have lower age of acquisition norms , while degree on the phonological layer correlated positively with word confusability . On the whole MLN, we can associate each word to its multidegree, namely the sum of its degrees on all the layers . Fundamentally, the usefulness of measures such as degree would suggest that words with multiple associates, multiple phonological neighbors and multiple shared features are those words that are learned earliest. The mechanisms behind this phenomenon could be that words with many associates and shared features are those words that are important in the language environment because they play a central role or because they are important to the parent or child. We remain agnostic as to the exact reason behind the increased 'importance' of a word, but suggest that it can be summarized by the degree. Closeness relates to how fast information spreads from a node to others . It is interesting for cognitive science since previous work showed that words closer on semantic topologies tend to be processed together in shorter time . Betweenness captures the extent to which a node falls on the shortest path between pairs of words . It captures centrality of words through a hypothetical navigation on the ML (cf. SI Sect. S6). PageRank identifies the likelihood of reaching a given node by a random walk in a network. High PageRank words on semantic networks were found easier to retrieve in fluency tasks . Closeness, betweenness and PageRank on multiplex networks exploit jumps through layers (cf. SI Sect. S6).

### Overlap measures and word ranking

A word trajectory is an ordered list $\tau=(w_1,w_2, ...,w_N)$ indicating the exact order in which words are learned. We define ${\tau_{aoa}}$ to be the ensemble of rankings derived from the CDI norms. We sample each specific ordering $\tau_{aoa}$ based on the probability of production as reported in the age of acquisition norms.

Predicted word orderings are generated as follows. First, each word is ranked according to a word score, $s_i$, which is derived from network specific or extrinsic word features (e.g. frequency or word length). Words are then ordered according to word score, starting with the largest score. Words receive a position in the predicted trajectory according to their position in the ordering of word scores. Ties in word orderings $s_i$ are taken into account by averaging over all resolutions. For example, one might wish to consider orderings based on degree in the association layer and would obtain the following word scores $s_{food}=62$, $s_{water}=45$, $s_{eat}=20$. The corresponding predicted acquisition trajectory would be $\tau=(food,water,eat)$. Apart from the features mention in the main text of the paper, we also considered many others (cf. SI Sect. 6).

To evaluate predictive performance of a word score, we first measure the overlap $O(\tau,t)$ between the predicted learning trajectory $\tau$ and the empirically known trajectory $\tau_{aoa}$ at time $t$ by counting the number of words that co-occur in $\tau$ and $\tau_{aoa}$ up to time $t$ and averaging over different $\tau_{aoa}$. We define the word gain $g(\tau,t)$ as the overlap minus random fluctuations, i.e. $$\centering
g(\tau,t)=O(\tau,t) - \langle O(\tau_{ran},t) \rangle.$$

The vocabulary size normalised word gains are computed as $G(\tau,t)=g(\tau,t)/t$ while the word gain Z-Scores consider deviations of overlaps from random guessing in terms of standard deviations $\sigma$, as $Z=g(\tau,t)/\sigma(O(\tau_{ran},t))$.

### Calculating optimal combinations of layers

To allow for varying influences of layers within the multiplex we construct word scores as convex combinations of individual layer influence, i.e. a word score $s_w$ for word $w$ is obtained as: $$\centering
s_{w}=\alpha s_{w}^{(Asso)}+\beta s_{w}^{(Feat)}+ \gamma s_{w}^{(Co-occ)} + (1-\alpha-\beta-\gamma)s_{w}^{(Phon)},$$ where $s_w^{(Asso)}$, $s_w^{(Feat)}$, $s_w^{(Co-occ)}$, and $s_w^{(Phon)}$ are word scores obtained from the respective single layer metrics and the coefficients $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ give the influence of each layer on the overall word score $s_w$. This linear combination of single-layer features is similar in spirit to previous decompositions of multiplex centrality, see and discussions in . The optimisation finds the influences $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ that maximise vocabulary normalised word gain (either over the entire time period or over specific learning phases) after removing 20% of the words at random. 20$\%$ was chosen in order not to remove too many words particularly in the very early word learning stages. Performance is evaluated on all words. Optimisation was performed using a differential evolution method . Averages are calculated over 50 configurations of left out words for 30 normative age of acquisition orderings.

# Author contributions statement

M.S., N.B. and M.B. designed the original study, M.S., N.B. and M.B. conceived the experiments, M.S. conducted the experiments, M.S., N.B. and M.B. analysed the results. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

# Additional information

The authors declare no competing financial interests. M.S. was supported by an EPSRC Doctoral Training Centre grant (EP/G03690X/1). The authors acknowledge the use of the muxViz software .


abstract: This paper presents a novel method for synthesizing new physical layer modulation and coding schemes for communications systems using a learning-based approach which does not require an analytic model of the impairments in the channel. It extends prior work published on the *channel autoencoder* to consider the case where the channel response is not known or can not be easily modeled in a closed form analytic expression. By adopting an adversarial approach for channel response approximation and information encoding, we can jointly learn a good solution to both tasks over a wide range of channel environments. We describe the operation of the proposed adversarial system, share results for its training and validation over-the-air, and discuss implications and future work in the area.
author:
;
;
;
bibliography: main.bib
title: Physical Layer Communications System Design Over-the-Air Using Adversarial Networks

# Introduction

The channel autoencoder (shown in Figure ) has recently received significant interest as a method for designing communications systems' physical layer information encoding schemes. By jointly optimizing large multi-layer non-linear encoder and decoder networks with many degrees of expressive freedom, made possible by techniques collectively known as deep learning , it has been shown that effective new modulation schemes with an inherent error-correction capability can be readily learned for a variety of common channel models.

This is an exciting result in that rather than manually designing radio modulation schemes for analytic representation convenience (e.g., slicing on nice rectangular grid boundaries) and then measuring or demonstrating their optimal use, we can directly learn modulation and demodulation functions of high complexity which optimize the complete system for global performance metrics or loss functions (e.g., symbol error rate). This method can provide highly efficient solutions for analytic channel models of single-user, multi-user, and multi-antenna communications channels. To optimize for the effects of a real-world system, however - including the effects induced by digital conversion, analog RF hardware, and other sources of distortions and impairments - the analytic expression used within the channel model must accurately represent all of these effects, and it must do so in a differentiable way suitable for backpropagation.

Unfortunately, for many systems, it is difficult to accurately capture all of these effects in a closed-form analytic representation. Thus, they are often represented using simplified models which cannot fully express real-world complexities (e.g., device-to-device hardware variation). For this reason, it is highly desirable to learn a radio communication scheme directly from the sampled response of real physical hardware devices and channels rather than attempting to model the responses manually. One solution to this, which is implemented and explored in , is to perform gradient updates only on the receiver network after synthetic pre-training. However, due to the lack of a channel gradient expression, this approach provides no way to further update the transmitter or modulation scheme. Differentiation through the wireless void is difficult. An approach using reinforcement learning and sampling is proposed in for related problems. Our approach, as presented in this paper, instead treats the problem as an adversarial function approximation problem.

In the next section we describe our proposed method for fully adapting the transmitter and receiver to a physical model-free channel response using a hardware-in-the-loop generative adversarial channel autoencoder network over-the-air.

# Technical Approach

Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have recently been used effectively for a number of applications, including generating false images which confuse learned image recognition systems into mis-classifying an object. They work by simultaneously training multiple adversarial objective functions, simultaneously or iteratively, which inform and improve each others' performance for some task. In the false image generation case, the basic approach trains a discriminator whose objective is to minimize the error in classifying images as *real* or *fake*, and a second network whose objective is to minimize the error in generating images from noise which classify as *real*. Since the original work in , numerous variations of this approach have significantly improved the performance of GANs , but they generally use the same original concept. Building upon this work, we combine our prior work on channel autoencoders with ideas inspired by GAN research to jointly optimize for the two tasks of:

1.  approximating the response of the channel in any arbitrary communications system, and

2.  learning an optimal encoding and decoding scheme which optimizes for some performance metric (e.g., low symbol error rate)

The basic configuration of this approach, which we refer to as a Communications GAN (CommGAN), is shown in Figure . Here, as with the original channel autoencoder shown in Figure , we leverage two networks for encoding and decoding of information symbols ($s$) which comprise our communications transmitter and receiver. The encoder network, $f(s,\theta_f)$, encodes codeword indices or bits into transmit waveform (sample values) or constellation (I/Q) values using a set of encoder weights $\theta_f$ through a series of neural network layers. The encoder network comprises fully connected layers with a ReLU activation, which enables non-linear transformations. The decoder network, $g(y,\theta_g)$, does the inverse - mapping the set of received samples (i.e., digitized voltage levels at the receive antenna) into a set of likelihood levels for each bit or codeword which may have been transmitted. The decoder network also comprises a series of fully connected layers, again using ReLU for non-linear transforms, and a SoftMax output activation. In contrast to our original channel autoencoder work, we do not employ a channel model such as an analytic expression for Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) or Rayleigh fading, but instead introduce two forms of the channel $h(x)$ to encompass modeling of any black-box channel transform:

1.  $h_0(x)$: A real-world physical measurement of the response of a communications system comprising a transmitter, a receiver, and a channel.

2.  $h_1(x,\theta_h)$: A non-linear multi-layer neural network which seeks to mimic the channel response of $h_0$ synthetically.

Throughout the training process, we use each of these channel expressions to iteratively arrive at an optimized solution. The simplified training approach used to train each of these networks is described in pseudo-code in Algorithm . Initially, we use a Mean-Squared Error (MSE) channel approximation loss ($\mathcal{L}_0$), and a sparse categorical cross-entropy channel autoencoder loss ($\mathcal{L}_1$).

Here we simply cycle between objectives, updating weights for each network during the appropriate stage with manually tuned learning rates and relatively small networks for $f$, $g$, and $h$, employing several fully connected ReLU layers for each.

The physical channel $h_0(x)$ is implemented using a Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP B210) and custom software tooling. The sample clocks of the transmit and receive hardware share a clock reference, but the devices have uncalibrated offsets and impairments from things like group delay, analog components, antenna and amplifier distortion, and over-the-air effects. We operate the radios in the 900 MHz ISM band using omni-directional whip antennas in a relatively benign indoor laboratory environment at a sample rate of 1 MSamp/sec. We loosely calibrate the transmit and receive times based on a rising edge pulse to within about 1 sample (1 microsecond), where fractional timing error and channel effects exist between the transmit and receive samples. For purposes of the encoder and decoder networks, we map information to 16 discrete symbols (i.e., 4 bits per symbol). We use 3 samples per symbol on the transmitter, and in each stage we send the three samples from one symbol and consider a single receive sample at the receiver, which occurs somewhere within the unaligned 3-sample time window (i.e., there is an un-calibrated symbol offset between the transmitter and receiver).

# Results

We found that normalization and noise insertion are important aspects of network training, just as they were in the fully simulated channel autoencoder implementation. Effects such as clipping (i.e., 'saturation') in physical analog-to-digital converters are helpful to capture in normalization to improve training convergence. Including an average power constraint, like those used in simulation, seem to mitigate un-helpful gradients - for instance, solutions which simply continually increase the transmit power.

The training process completes in less than five minutes using an NVIDIA Titan V GPU. Figure presents the loss curves of the channel approximation accuracy and the autoencoder symbol cross-entropy during the training process. Here, both functions reinforce the other, iteratively building better models of the channel and learning more optimal transmit signal representations as time and the number of epochs increase.

The resulting learned modulation scheme is a non-standard 16-QAM mode which achieves a symbol error rate of around 0.00714, measured over-the-air. Figure plots the encoding scheme's learned I/Q samples after training, showing the three complex transmitted samples and the single complex received sample, taken at some fractional time within the 3-sample time window, with an over-the-air channel. We can see that symbols 0, 1, and 2 learn to transmit similar constellations with varying scaling and rotation, which interpolate to form a clean non-standard 16-QAM receive constellation, shown in the bottom right, with a different rotation relative to the transmitted constellations.

# Conclusion

We have shown in this paper that by using an adversarial approach we can learn function approximations for arbitrary communications channels, and that by jointly learning a channel function approximation and an encoder/decoder scheme we can learn effective communication systems which achieve robust performance without needing a closed-form channel model or implementation. Previously, over-the-air channel autoencoders required pre-training based on a closed-form model designed to match the expected deployment scenario and could not back-propagate through the black-box void of the radio channel, and thus only optimized the receiver side of the network . Using an adversarial approach, we have shown that such a system can be learned directly on an unknown and uncharacterized physical channel, and that the function approximation for this channel is sufficient to back-propagate and adapt both encoder and decoder networks.

Much future work remains for this approach, such as providing a more in depth analysis of the system performance, addressing training on a stream of information rather than a single symbol (also raised in ), investigating how such a system would perform under changing environmental conditions with online over-the-air adaptation, and how it might scale to larger symbol block-sizes on the order of those used by modern LTE cellular standards.

Learning directly from complex systems with high degrees of freedom, such as radio hardware and the propagation effects of physical channels, continues to be a challenging problem for modern communications systems with numerous sources of linear and non-linear impairments which can be difficult to accurately capture with simplified analytic models. This paper presented an alternative approach which addresses the complexities present in physical radio systems using approximation networks learned directly from data and experience. While much work is needed to mature this approach, we believe that the ability to optimize a system's performance holistically, over many effects and transforms, is a fundamental requirement for the next major leap in the performance of communications systems.


abstract: In this paper we report on LCG Monte-Carlo Data Base (MCDB) and software which has been developed to operate MCDB. The main purpose of the LCG MCDB project is to provide a storage and documentation system for sophisticated event samples simulated for the LHC collaborations by experts. In many cases, the modern Monte-Carlo simulation of physical processes requires expert knowledge in Monte-Carlo generators or significant amount of CPU time to produce the events. MCDB is a knowledgebase mainly dedicated to accumulate simulated events of this type. The main motivation behind LCG MCDB is to make the sophisticated MC event samples available for various physical groups. All the data from MCDB is accessible in several convenient ways. LCG MCDB is being developed within the CERN LCG Application Area Simulation project.
address: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow region, Russia, 141980; Scobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, 119992; Institute For High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia, 142281; CERN/SFT, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland; Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK
author: S. Belov; L. Dudko; E. Galkin; A. Gusev; W. Pokorski; A. Sherstnev
title: LCG MCDB – a Knowledgebase of Monte-Carlo Simulated Events.

# Program Summary

**LONG WRITE-UP**

# Introduction

The LCG MCDB project  has been created to facilitate communication between experts/authors of Monte-Carlo (MC) generators and users of the programs in the LHC collaborations.

The current version of LCG MCDB provides flexible infrastructure to share samples of events of particle collisions in accelerators prepared by the MC method (MC event samples) and keep the files in a reliable and convenient way. It has several interfaces, mainly Web-based, which help to carry out routine operations with stored samples by end-users and authors of the samples.

LCG MCDB is particularly useful in tasks where the preparation of event samples requires specific knowledge of the Monte-Carlo codes/techniques applied, significant computing power, and/or constant interaction between end-users and the authors of the events. In many standard tasks events can be produced "on the fly" keeping just initial "data-cards", i.e. MC code parameter values which unambiguously define a concrete simulation run. But if the simulation time or exploitable resources become a significant factor, it would be worth considering the event sample as a candidate to keep in LCG MCDB. For instance, this situation can arise if we use such MC programs as ALPGEN , CompHEP , GRACE , or MadGraph . Even MC generators as PYTHIA or HERWIG sometimes require the keeping of event files themselves. Examples of this sort happen in simulations of rare processes and/or with strong pre-selection cuts.

The second motivation behind the project is to create a central database of MC events, where stored event samples are publicly available for all groups to use and/or validate. Often, different groups of experimentalists prepare similar event samples or turn to the same group of authors of MC generators in the simulation. For example, the same MC samples of Standard Model (SM) processes can be employed for the investigations either in the SM analyses (as a signal) or in searches for new phenomena in Beyond Standard Model analyses (as a background). Publicity of the event samples equipped with corresponding and comprehensive documentation can speed up cross checks of the samples themselves and physical models applied. It also prevents possible waste of researcher time and computing resources.

The previous version  of MCDB was launched by the CMS collaboration in 2002. Several years of extensive use of the database have shown some limitations of a design applied in CMS MCDB. Storage of event files on AFS [^1] allows one to keep only small sized MC samples (basically parton level events prepared by Matrix Element tools), phonetic-based search turned out to be insufficient, and the database does not have simple tools to reuse information entered in MCDB earlier, such as physical parameters (masses, couplings, etc.), process information (name, PDF, particle content), generator information, etc. The new design of MCDB presented in this paper overcomes these problems and gives opportunities for further development of the idea. LCG MCDB is based on much more powerful, standardized and exportable software tools that are available to the LHC collaborations. Current migration of CMS physical groups from old CMS MCDB to the LCG framework gives us the motivation for the further development of the tool.

In the next sections we describe the LCG MCDB design and ideas in more detail and briefly portray subsystems and modules of LCG MCDB. Section  reports how end-users can use the software. A more detailed manual and installation instructions are available on the LCG MCDB server ( , help section).

At present, LCG MCDB is a stable software package and ready to use for the LHC community. A dedicated web server is deployed in .

# LCG MCDB as a knowledgebase

Knowledgebase is a special kind of database for knowledge management. It provides the means for the computerized collection, organization, and retrieval of knowledge . According to the definition one of the specific features of knowledgebase is that it keeps metadata or meta-information, i.e. information on data. Usually it is not possible to strictly distinguish between data and metadata, since the separation depends on situations where the data are exploited. In our concrete case we discriminate between events, as sets of particle 4-momenta (data), and information describing the events as one entity, an event sample (metadata). The latter is also not very strictly defined. For example, if the number of particles in an event is the same for the whole sample, we can add the parameter to metadata. But if it varies from event to event it is certainly a part of data. In our definition of metadata we try to single out the most common characteristic of event samples, which could be applied in most cases. Metadata form the main contents of MCDB. In this sense, MCDB can hold a path to an event sample only and the sample itself can be located somewhere else.

The benefit of the separation is the following. MCDB interfaces provide the means to manipulate with metadata only[^2]. This simplifies the structure and software of MCDB drastically. Thus by means of MCDB interfaces an end-user can search for a necessary event sample (according to given criteria), comprehend what the sample holds, and how the events were prepared. In other words, MCDB should let the end-user know how to reproduce the events. According to the idea the metadata must describe the corresponding event sample in a comprehensive manner. This information should be entered by the event sample author. In some cases, metadata are encoded inside the event file itself and can be inserted to MCDB (semi-)automatically.

Comprehensive description of an event sample requires a lot of information, which should be entered to the database. However, in practice, in this specific data domain a large part of the information is common for lots of samples. For example, the Standard Model processes are described by a large set of SM couplings and particle parameters (masses, widths, etc.)[^3], but usually, only few parameters are modified from one sample to another. In the MCDB conception we introduce "Model" – a set of parameters, which can be attached to an event sample. An author of events can choose an appropriate model and change a few parameters in the model and store the modified set of parameters as a new model with a new name. The same solution is used in the description of MC generators. We introduce a standard record to describe the programs. The author simply chooses one of the standard records and attaches it to a new article. In order to include the features in the author interface we developed our own Content Management System with a flexible structure, which can be extended in a simple manner.

The second idea behind the current design of MCDB is that MCDB is an area for interaction between two different communities, producers of events and consumers of the events. We call the groups "authors" and end-users respectively. Since the goals and tasks of the two groups are different, the corresponding MCDB interfaces intended for each group of users should also be different. Any researcher who feels his/her sample is worthy to come within MCDB can make a request to open a new author account on the MCDB server. It means MCDB does not assume to have a special team (of event producers) to prepare events according to end-user requests.

There are several blocks in LCG MCDB, which should be realized:

-   Content Management System with a powerful and flexible Web interface for authors of event samples. It should have several types of templates to simplify the task of event sample description.

-   A block of tree graph of physical categories with articles published by authors. This is the main part MCDB visible via Web browsers with no authentication in MCDB.

-   A powerful search engine based on SQL/XML to search for contents of MCDB.

-   A programming interface to CASTOR , which is used as a native storage of event samples.

-   A block of direct uploading of files from Web/AFS/CASTOR/GRID to MCDB.

-   Block of direct downloading of files from MCDB via Web/CASTOR/GRID (URI).

-   A flexible and reliable authentication system based on CERN AFS/Kerberos logins or LCG GRID certificates

-   Backup system for all stored samples and corresponding SQL information. g

-   API to the LHC collaboration software environments.

-   The standard record of an event sample. The record should be encoded to a set of SQL tables.

-   A unified and flexible format of event files based on the LHEF agreement and the HepML language. A programming package which supports the format.

## Metadata in LCG MCDB

In general, metadata can hold very specific information and can be presented in an arbitrary form. In fact, it is one of the main problems of knowledgebases, since the arbitrariness results in problems in introducing effective and relevant search methods in knowledgebases. Our situation is simpler than the general case and we can limit ourselves by some general set of parameters which cover most parts of the necessary information on event samples. Owing to specific purposes and application area of MCDB, we can define the standard record for MCDB articles. Now the record corresponds to a set of parameters stored as a record in our relational DB and a comment written by the author in free form. All information which is not kept within the standard record can be and should be put in the comment. MCDB search requests use the standard records to retrieve information. If MCDB users, authors or end-users, request to add new parameters to the standard record it can be extended.

The standard information to describe event samples can be divided into several blocks. Each of the blocks corresponds to a definite set of parameters which are necessary to interpret a concrete event sample. The list below gives a short description of the main blocks:

-   General information about a simulated event sample or a group of samples

    -   Title of physical process

    -   Physical Category (e.g. Higgs, Top physics or W+jets processes)

    -   Abstract (short description)

    -   List of authors

    -   Name of an experiment and/or a group (for which the sample was prepared or intended)

    -   Author comment on the sample (some additional unstructured information on the sample)

-   Physical process

    -   Initial state (names of beam particle, energy, etc.)

    -   Final state (name of the final particles, etc.)

    -   QCD scale(s)

    -   Process PDF (parton distribution functions) applied

    -   Information on separate subprocesses, if they are distinguished

-   Event file

    -   File name

    -   The number of events

    -   Cross section and cross section error(s)

    -   Author comment

-   Used MC generator

    -   Name and version

    -   Short description

    -   Home page Web-address

-   Theoretical model used to simulate the events

    -   Name

    -   Short Description

    -   A set of physical parameters and their values with the author's descriptions

-   Applied cuts

# LCG MCDB Software Description

This section describes shortly all subsystems and software technologies adopted in LCG MCDB. The current version of LCG MCDB is based on the following technologies: WWW, CGI, Perl, SQL, XML, CASTOR, and GRID. MCDB is a Web server written as a set of Perl CGI scripts. The scripts interact with relational DB by means of SQL requests and can generate either Web pages or XML documents. The main storage of event files is based on tape robots at CERN available via CASTOR. The MCDB software is organized as a set of Perl modules with the possibility of installing and customizing the software on other sites. All of the MCDB software has been developed from scratch and is available publicly in LCG CVS .

For the whole contents of LCG MCDB we provide a daily backup of the SQL DB and double mirroring of the samples in CASTOR. The main unit of MCDB is an **article**, a document describing one or several event samples. MCDB articles are distributed into **categories**, i.e. a set of articles concerning a particular type of physical process (e.g. top physics, Higgs physics) or theoretical model (e.g. supersymmetry, extra dimensions). Each category has its own branch in the main MCDB Web tree graph. The access system in MCDB reminds of a classical system used in the usual Internet forums or newsgroups. There are four different types of permissions to access MCDB. The **end-user** access is reserved for users who are interested in requesting a new event sample or in downloading or making comments to already published event samples. The **author** access is reserved for authorized users (MC experts) and requires registration on the main Web site. Only authors can upload and describe new event samples. The **moderator** access is reserved for users who manage author profiles and are responsible for general monitoring of information uploaded. The **administrator** access is reserved for software developers and maintainers who take care of the database itself. The scheme of LCG MCDB is shown in Fig. .

## Web interface

The Web-interface consists of two parts:

-   End-user area, where any user can search for a necessary event sample in the whole set of available samples. Requests can be done either via a search form or by browsing the main tree graph of categories where all articles are available. Users can read the description of the events, download the samples, ask questions about the samples and read the previous discussions on the particular event sample.

-   Author area, where authors can upload new event files to the database and describe the events using the MCDB template system. As we mentioned, the users do not need to enter all the necessary information from scratch, since the templates have a lot of pre-entered information. Authors can interact with the end-users of their samples on public forums attached to each article. With the same interface, authors can edit his/her own previous articles or make the articles temporarily inaccessible in the end-user area.

## SQL DB

LCG MCDB adopts MySQL. The SQL technology provides the possibility to keep information in a very structured way. Authors provide documentation on event samples through forms and MCDB scripts translate the information to records in the MCDB relational database.

## Search engine

Since we use a relational DB, it is possible to provide a variety of complex search queries, which can use specific relations between DB records. The deployed Web search interface is realized as a dynamic query construction wizard which is based on the JavaScript XML-query constructor. The development of application programming interfaces to specific external software (for example a simulation framework of a LHC experiment) may benefit from similar tools in order to simplify the query construction.

## Storage

As a native storage interface for event samples we have selected CASTOR, because of the absence of serious space limitations on tapes and taking into account popularity of the interface in the LHC collaborations. We provide direct CASTOR paths for all LCG MCDB samples and also several options to obtain the samples through other interfaces (HTTP, GridFtp etc.). A local disk cache system is used to speed up the storage operations.

## Authentication

We pay special attention to the security of transactions during all LCG MCDB operations. All of the transactions are encrypted by SSL technology. There are two ways to log in to MCDB. The first one relies on CERN AFS/Kerberos login/password. The second mechanism uses LCG GRID certificates. Authors can choose either or both of these ways. These authentication methods are the standard at CERN and any CERN user can use at least one of these two methods.

## Documentation

Most of the LCG MCDB documentation is available from the dedicated web server. The information consists of different parts. Technical documentation describes the current implementation of LCG MCDB itself. The user documentation is organized as a set of HOW-TOs for end-users and authors. A separate documentation (available from the CVS repository) is intended for developers of the LCG MCDB software. A brief start-up manual for non-experienced LCG MCDB users is also available in the next section of this document. In addition, there are two freely accessible mailing lists dedicated to users and developers. Their addresses are available in the documentation section on the main web page of the server.

# How to use LCG MCDB

An end-user who is going to look for and download events for a particular process can browse the MCDB categories and subcategories (the menu at the left side of the main LCG MCDB web page ) and verify, whether an appropriate sample has already been generated. If this is the case, the end-user may read the sample article describing how the events have been prepared (check parameters of the theoretical model, generator name and generation parameters, kinematic cuts, etc.). At the bottom of the page there is a link to the uploaded file(s), as well as a direct CASTOR path to the sample. The web page also contains a link to the "Users Comments" interface, where end-users can ask questions about the sample and browse the previous discussions on the article. Users do not need any special authorization to carry out all the steps described above. The search engine provides different possibilities of search queries based on the set of main parameters of the article and samples.

If someone wants to upload a new event sample or publish a new article in LCG MCDB (it means the user will become an author), (s)he should follow the following procedure:

-   Register as a new author. There is a link to the registration interface on the right side menu of the main MCDB Web page. Wait for a confirmation e-mail.

-   Login to the LCG MCDB authors area.

-   Choose the option "Create New Article" in the authors menu. It appears at the right side after authentication.

-   Fill all necessary forms in the documentation template (title, generator, theoretical model, cuts, etc.)

-   Upload event files in the "Event Files" sub-window.

-   Tick the box "Publish" and click "Preview/Save".

As we mentioned above, for authentication the author needs a valid CERN AFS login or a LCG GRID digital certificate.

Authors can save unfinished articles in MCDB and resume to edit them later. Authors can edit their previous articles that are already published on the Web or make the articles publicly inaccessible for a while.

The LCG MCDB team appreciates any bug reports, feedback, comments or suggestions for possible new implementations and improvements of the service (LCG MCDB).

# API to collaboration software

Apart from the MCDB server, LCG MCDB team provides application programming interfaces (APIs) specific to the simulation environments of the LHC collaborations. The main idea of these subsystems is to develop a set of routines for the collaboration software which would give a direct access to the LCG MCDB files during the MC production on computer farms.

The most simple way to access event samples is to use direct WEB, CASTOR or GRID path to the event samples. This way does not require any special software developments on the side of collaboration software. This way, however, does not provide any possibility for automatic access to event sample description. This is the reason we developed a more complicated interface which could be used for automatic processing of event samples and the corresponding documentation. According to our idea, MCDB team provides API based on XML representation of event sample metadata. The current version of the API is a C++ library, which can be added to collaboration software. The XML output from LCG MCDB is based on the HepML , specifications (for more details, see the next section).

The current library contains C++ classes and provides routines to fill the class objects with information from a MCDB article, including CASTOR/GRID/HTTP paths to event files attached to the article. Such an interface has already been implemented in the CMS collaboration software environment. The software and documentation are available in LCG CVS .

Fig.  reports a general scheme of an interaction between LCG MCDB to external user software via the API.

In the future, some emphasis will be put on the development of extensions of API specific to the automatic uploading of HepML information and event samples to MCDB. This development will be carried out in the context of the HepML project.

# A unified XML format HepML

At present, each MC generator supports its own output format of event files. Authors of Matrix Element tools (the term originates from ) provide interface programs to pass the events of a particular MC generator to the subsequent level of simulation (i.e. showering, hadronization, decays, simulation of detector response). The first step to standardize such interfaces has been described in the agreement "Les Houches Accord Number One" (LHA-I) , where a definite and strict structure of FORTRAN COMMON BLOCKS to transfer the necessary information from one code to another was fixed. The second step in this direction has been done in the agreement "Les Houches Event File" (LHEF) , where the information fixed in LHA-I is translated to the event file structure. All other information can be kept in a specific place inside the header of the event file. The standard does not apply any limitations on the extra information and the structure of the block. The next natural step is to provide a unified format to keep the necessary information within the LHEF structure. In this context the other information means the metadata described in the section  and some other information specific to the sample (parameters of matching in different schemes, information on specific NLO approximations, jet parameters, etc.).

Owing to the highly dissimilar nature of the information, the most appropriate technology for the unified representation could be XML-based format. In this case it can provide the possibility to describe the stored information in a very flexible and structured way.

The main idea behind the XML-based format is the flexibility to build and include a set of necessary parameters in an event file. For example, different MC generators may use the same tags for description of the physical parameters or they may need to keep specific information (through introduction of new dedicated tags). The new tags do not spoil the event file format and we do not need to re-write our routines which process these event files automatically. HepML is now being developed within the special LCG HepML project in collaboration with the CEDAR project . More information is available on our wiki .

As the first part of HepML we have prepared several XML Schemas. The main goal of the Schemas is to provide a general and formal description of event data structures which are kept in XML files. Adapting the idea authors of MC codes can use powerful XML tools in developing of I/O routines. If the routines are consistent with the Schemas, event files generated by the routines can be read by other programs without changes in input routines of the programs. Also the Schemas can be used for validation of event files if the files are written according to HepML specifications. Now we have three main Schemas. The first XML Schema *lha1.xsd* corresponds to the whole set of parameters composing the LHA-I agreement. The other two Schemas, *sample-description.xsd* and *mcdb-article.xsd*, describe parameters, which are necessary to generate an XML data for an event sample and to form an LCG MCDB article for the sample. It means it includes all parameters mentioned in the list in Sect.  except for some parameters from LHA-I. The CEDAR team develops other XML Schemas for other tasks arising in the problem of automatization of data processing in HEP. Now all the Schemas are unified in one general formal XML Schema *hepml.xsd*, which includes all the other Schemas as sub-Schemas. This solution leaves freedom to develop Schemas and software in independent groups, but to use Schemas of both groups in one software project. All the developed Schemas are available in .

Possible internal adaption of LHEF and HepML formats into the most popular MC generator projects would result in a significant improvement of the MC event sample documentation and book-keeping. Such adaption of the unified standards provides the possibility to develop new standard interfaces and utilities. The LCG MCDB project already implements a part of HepML specifications in MCDB API. A dedicated document discussing the details of the requirements and describing the HepML proposal will appear in the near future .

# Conclusion

MCDB is a special knowledgebase designed to keep event samples for the LHC experimental and phenomenological community. Now, a new version of the software has been finished and the server is ready for use by the community. Some new important features are implemented in the software. The features simplify and improve the process of documentation of event samples.

In addition to the server, MCDB team has prepared an API for the LHC collaboration software environments. Implementation of the API to the software environments could give a possibility to use MCDB as a native storage in large-scale productions in collaborations.

Subsequent development of the software will rely on further standardization of event file formats and elaboration of the HepML specifications and software.

# Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the RFBR (the RFBR grant 07-07-00365-a). We thank Seyi Latunda-Dada for discussions of the text. We also acknowledge the LCG collaboration for support and hospitality at CERN. Participation of A. S. in the project was partly supported by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Council.

[^1]: The Andrew File System (AFS) is a distributed networked file system developed by Carnegie Mellon University as part of the Andrew Project.

[^2]: Except for interfaces which are responsible for downloading and uploading of event files. See more details in the next sections.

[^3]: A worse situation arises in Beyond SM models, where we can have hundreds of physical parameters in some models