abstract: Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), with growing applications in the environment which are not within human reach have been addressed tremendously in the recent past. For optimized working of network many routing algorithms have been proposed, mainly focusing energy efficiency, network lifetime, clustering processes. Considering homogeneity of network, we proposed Energy Efficient Sleep Awake Aware (EESAA) intelligent routing protocol for WSNs. In our proposed technique we evaluate and enhance certain issues like network stability, network lifetime and cluster head selection process. Utilizing the concept of characteristical pairing among sensor nodes energy utilization is optimized. Simulation results show that our proposed protocolnificantly improved the network parameters and can be a useful approach for WSNs.
author: T. Shah, N. Javaid, T. N. Qureshi

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
44000, Islamabad, Pakistan.
title: Energy Efficient Sleep Awake Aware (EESAA) Intelligent Sensor Network Routing Protocol

# Introduction

Advancement in technologies, devices many opportunities for efficient usage of resources in critical atmospheres. Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) brought a revolutionary change in this context. Gathering and delivering of useful information to the destination, became able with advent of this technology. Applications like battlefield surveillance, smart office, traffic monitoring and etc, can be well monitored through such schemes.

WSN is composed of multiple unattended ultra-small, limited-power sensor nodes deployed randomly in the area of interest such as inaccessible ares or disaster places for gathering of useful information. Miniature sensor nodes capable of sensing, processing useful information from, and transmitting to destination has opened many research issues. These battery powered sensor nodes are mounted with limited processing and storage facilities. As WSNs are exposed to dynamic environments, due to such configuration connectivity loss of nodes may degrade the performance of network.

Design of protocols which should be energy efficient and hence, enhancing the network life time is important for better performance. Centralized algorithms are effected badly when a critical node stops working and thus, results in a serious protocol failure. In contrast, distributed protocols can handle such failures more efficiently and can be a suitable solution. Clustering structured routing protocol capable of data aggregation are designed for energy efficiency of a network. Within a cluster localized algorithms can operate without any wait of control messages and hence, reducing the delay. Better scalability is also achieved through these localized algorithms when compared with centralized one's.

In this paper. we evaluate the performance of clustering algorithms on the basis of stability period, network life time and throughput for WSNs. We enhance the above mentioned parameters. Information from sensor nodes is forwarded to cluster heads (CHs) and these CHs are responsible to transmit this information to base station (BS) which is placed far away from the field.

Clustering algorithms like LEACH, and DEEC \[1,5\] for sensor networks have achieved reasonable goals regarding better performance of networks. Following their thoughts we proposed a new pairing concept based on applications and specified distances between the sensors which will yield significant improvements in the efficiency of network.

Rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II describes related work whereas, Section III describes our protocol EESAA and section IV describes simulations. In the end we concluded the paper.

# Related Work

In WSNs, (Homogenous, Heterogenous) energy always remains a constraint. Many techniques have been proposed to utilize energy of sensor nodes in a better way. Concept of clustering yields significant results in optimizing energy cost for both homogenous and heterogenous networks. In clustering some of the nodes are selected as CHs and had to spent more energy than rest of nodes for a specific period of time. This high energy consumption is due to aggregation and long range transmission of data. Many clustering algorithms e.g., LEACH, PEGASIS, DEEC, SEP, E-SEP \[1,2,5,4,6\].etc have been proposed which discuses the efficient usage of energy in sensor networks.

CHs in LEACH \[1\] protocol are selected periodically and energy drains uniformly by role rotation. In PEGASIS \[2\] energy load is distributed by forming a chain itself or being organized by BS. For such chain formation global knowledge about the network is essential and results in wastage of resources. In DEEC \[5\] , sensor node are independently elected as CHs based initial energy and residual energy. SEP \[4\] is designed to deal with heterogenous networks which introduced the concept of advance and normal nodes for cluster head election.

Performance is evaluated on the basis of network stability period, clustering process and throughput. In our EESAA, keeping homogeneity in mind we tried to enhance all these parameters. EESAA keeps the merits of distributed clustering as well.

# EESAA: The Proposed Protocol

In this section, we present a new routing protocol for homogenous networks called EESAA. Our goal is to minimize energy consumption in order to enhance network stability period and network lifetime. For this purpose, we introduced the concept of pairing. Sensor nodes of same application and at minimum distance between them will form a pair for data sensing and communication. In our EESAA protocol, we also enhance CHs selection technique, by selecting CHs on basis of remaining energy of nodes. More comprehensive description of coupling among nodes is defined as follows.

## Advance Coupling Network Model (ACNM)

In this section, we explain Advance Coupling Network Model(ACNM). Initially senor nodes measure their location through GPS (Global Positioning System). The nodes transmit their location information, Application type and $Node \_ ID$ to the Base Station (BS). Then, this gathered information is utilized by BS to compute mutual distance between nodes. Nodes which are at minimum distance from each other in their intra cluster transmission range and of same application type are coupled in pair by BS. Then BS broadcast pairing information to all the nodes in network. Nodes become aware of their coupled node. During coupling process some nodes are left out because they are not in inter cluster transmission range of any other node.

According to the proposed scheme, The nodes switch between "Sleep" and "Awake" mode during a single communication interval. Initially node in a pair switch into Awake-mode also called Active-mode if its distance from the BS is less then its coupled node. Node in Active-mode will gather data from surroundings and transmit this data to CHs. During this period transceiver of the coupled node will remain off, and switches into Sleep-mode. Sleep-mode nodes cease their communication with CHs and only sense the network status. In next communication interval, nodes in Active-mode switch into Sleep-mode and Sleep-mode nodes switch into awake-mode. In this way, we are able to minimize energy consumption because nodes in Sleep-modes save their energy by not communicating with the CHss. Nodes in Sleep-mode also save their energy by avoiding overhearing and idle listening during Sleep-mode. Isolated nodes remain in Active-mode for every round till their energy resources depleted.

## Network Settling Phase (NSP)

In NSP, optimal number of CHs are selected with the help of distributed algorithm. Initially all nodes have same energy and network is homogenous in terms of energy level. In LEACH \[1\] protocol every node decides to become CH or not in current round. The decision is based on desired percentage of CHs per round which is $P_{d}$. In order to assure average number of CH ($P_{d}$$\times N$ ) for N number of nodes, Leach allows each node to become CH after every 1/$P_{d}$ rounds. Number of rounds after which a node become CH refer to as epoch. In homogenous network, energy of nodes after first round can not be same. If the epoch for some high energy nodes and low energy is same, these nodes have same probability to become CHs. There is no proper distribution of CH responsibilities, nodes with low energy will die quickly as compare to nodes with high energy. In our EESAA protocol the CHs selection after first round is based on remaining energy of each node.

Nodes in Active-mode take participation in CH election process. In first round when all nodes have same initial energy $E_{o}$ , nodes in Active-mode will elect them self as CHs on the basis of probability of selecting CH using distributed algorithm. Each node chose a random number between 0 to 1 and compares it to a threshold $T_{h}$, which is calculated as:

$$\begin{aligned}
 T_{h} = \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
    \frac {P_{d}}{1 - P_{d}*((firstround)mod\frac{1}{P_{d}})} & \quad \textrm{if $n \in A $ }\\
    0 & \quad \textrm{otherwise}\\
  \end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$

where, A is the set of nodes which are in Active-mode in first round. If the random number selected by node is less then threshold $T_{h}$, Node will elect itself as a CH and called as Parent-Cluster-Heads (PCHs). When node has been selected as PCH, it broadcasts an advertisement message to whole network. Only Active-mode nodes hear the broadcast advertisements from different PCHs, They select their PCHs on the basis of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) of advertisements. When an Active-mode node decides to which cluster it wants to associate, it transmits a request to that PCH using Carrier Sensed Multiple Access (CSMA) MAC protocol to avoid collision. Along with request Active-mode nodes also transmit their energy information to the PCH. The PCH computes the remaining energy and its distance from each node and select CH, called Child-Cluster-Head(CCH), for the next round. CCH is selected on the basis of maximum remaining energy of nodes. If different nodes have same remaining energy then a node at minimum distance from PCH is selected as CCH. When PCH selects CCH, it sets up TDMA schedule for associated nodes for communication. PCH then broadcast CCH information and TDMA schedule associated nodes in its cluser. Each node in cluster transmit its data to PCH in its TDMA slot.

## Network Transmission Phase (NTP)

In NTP, all nodes in Active-mode, transmit their sensed data to CH during their assigned TDMA slots. Nodes in Sleep-mode do not take participation in NTP and thus save their energy by turning their transceiver off. CHs aggregates received data form each nodes and transmit to BS. Data aggregation is a key signalling technique to compress the amount of data. Due to data aggregation technique a noticeable amount of energy is saved. If there are N total number of nodes and k are the optimal number of CHs then the average number of nodes in each cluster will be: $$\label{2}
    \left(\frac{N}{K}-1 \right)$$

In order to transmit data, The radio of a non-CH node dissipates $E_{TX}$ to run the transmitter circuitry and $E_{amp}$ for transmit amplifier to achieve acceptable SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio). So, for transmission of $L_{C}$ bit message a non-CH node expands: $$\label{3}
   E_{non-CH}=\left(\frac{N}{K}-1 \right)(E_{TX}\times L_{C}\times E_{amp}\times L_{C}\times d^{2}_{to_CH}$$ To receive data from non-CH node on by the radio of CH in each cluster expands: $$\label{3}
    E_{rec}= ({E}_{RX}\times {L}_{c})\left(\frac{N}{K}-1 \right)$$

where, ${E}_{RX}$ is energy dissipate by receiver circuitry for receiving data. Energy dissipated by CH to aggregate data received from its associated nodes. $$\label{5}
    E_{AGR}= ({E}_{AD} \times {L}_{c})\left(\frac{N}{K} \right)$$

Transmission energy $E_{T}$ dissipates by CH to transmit aggregated data to the BS is: $$\label{6}
    E_{T}=E_{TX} \times L_{A} \times E_{amp} \times L_{A} \times d^{2}_{to BS}$$

where, $L_{A}$ is aggregated data and $d^{2}_{to BS}$ is the distance between CH and BS. Total energy dissipated by CH a round is: $$\label{7}
    E_{CH}=E_{rec}+E_{AGR}+E_{T}$$

Total energy dissipate by CH is the energy dissipated in reception of data from its associated nodes,aggregation of received data and transmission of that data to the BS.

## Node Mode Setup Phase (Node Mode Setup Phase)

In this phase, Every node decides whether switch to sleep mode or active mode for the next round. Active-mode node first check that weather it is CCH or not. If it is not CCH it will turn its transceiver off and switch into sleep mode. If it is elected as CCH, it will remain active for the next round. Sleep-mode nodes switch to active if their coupled partner not selected as CCH. Nodes are not coupled with any other node will remain active through its lifetime.

Above algorithm defines how nodes switch between sleep and awake mode in our EESAA protocol. Node will first check that it is coupled or not. If node is coupled then node check its mode and if it is in Active-mode then it check its CCH flag. If its CCH flag is ON, it will remain in Active-mode. If node is in Active-mode and its CCH flag is not ON it will switch into Sleep-mode. If node is in Sleep-mode, it checks that whether its coupled partner's CCH flag is on or not. If node's coupled partner's CCH flag is on it will remain in sleep mode. If not then node switches to active mode. If coupled partner of a node is dead it will remain active. All that nodes which are left out in coupling process remain active for whole network life time.

# Simulation Results

We measure the performance of our proposed protocol EESAA by performing comparative simulations. In our simulations we generate a sensor field of $100m\times100m$ size. In this field we randomly drop $n \epsilon (100)$ sensor nodes with initially energy Eo. Parameters for our simulation are given in table I.

| Parameter |  |  |  | value |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Network size |  |  |  | 100m \* 100m |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Initial Energy |  |  |  | .5 J |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| $P_{d}$ |  |  |  | .1 J |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Data Aggregation Energy cost |  |  |  | 50pj/bit j |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Number of nodes |  |  |  | 100 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Packet size |  |  |  | 4000 bit |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Transmitter Electronics (EelectTx) |  |  |  | 50 nJ/bit |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Receiver Electronics (EelecRx) |  |  |  | 50 nJ/bit |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Transmit amplifier (Eamp) |  |  |  | 100 pJ/bit/m2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

Simulation Parameters

For analyzing and comparing the performance of EESAA protocol with LEACH, SEP and DEEC protocols we consider the following metrics as given in \[1,3,4\].

1.  Stability period: It is duration of network operation from start till first node dies.

2.  Network lifetime: Network lifetime is duration from start till last node is alive.

3.  Instability period: It is duration of network operation from first node dies till the least node dies.

4.  Number of Cluster-heads:It indicates the number of clusters generated per round.

5.  Packet to BS: It is rate of successful data delivery to BS from CHs.

We analyze network lifetime of LEACH, SEP, DEEC and our EESAA protocols. We examine the way the number of alive nodes varies as network evolves. In fig 3 it is depicted that EESAA has a prolong stability period as compare to the other protocols. In EESAA first node dies around 1800 round. Stability period of EESAA is almost 120$\%$ 50$\%$ and 35$\%$ greater than LEACH, SEP and DEEC respectively. From fig 3 it is also depicted that EESAA has 100$\%$ 102$\%$ and 50$\%$ maximum network life time as compared to LEACH, SEP and DEEC. It is because of sleep-awake property of nodes and effective cluster-head selection's algorithm.

From Fig.4 we notice that the first node dies around $1700$ and last node dies after $4000$ rounds. This shows that in EESAA instable region starts very later as compare to other protocols. Figure 5 also shows that there is sudden increase in number of dead nodes in SEP and LEACH protocols whilst in EESAA nodes dies at a constant rate. This observation depicts that in EESAA energy dissipation is properly distributed among all the nodes in the network which in result increases network lifetime.

In Fig.5 we analyze the number of CHs selected in every round for all routing protocols. As shown in Fig.6 SEP, DEEC, LEACH has more uncertainties in CHs selection. Random number of CHs are selected in every round but ESSA has some patterns and controlled CHs selection. EESAA efficient CHs selection algorithm helps it in better and constant data rate transmission to BS. Although EESAA has sleep-awake policy for nodes and less number of data is transmitted to BS however, ESSAA successful data delivery to BS is much better than SEP and LEACH although SEP and LEACH is transmitting data continuously. Other main reason of higher data rate achievement is longer network life time of EESAA. Successful data delivery is shown in Fig 6.

# Conclusion

In this paper, we presented a more optimized routing scheme for WSNs. Main focus was to enhance cluster-head selection process. In EESAA, CHs ale selected on the basis of remaining energy. In EESAA nodes also switches between sleep and active modes in order to minimize energy consumption. In our proposed strategy, stability period of network, and life time has been optimized. Simulation results show that their is significant improvement in all these parameters when compared with some of the existing routing protocols e.g., SEP, LEACH and DEEC.


abstract: Disentangling content and style information of an image has played an important role in recent success in image translation. In this setting, how to inject given style into an input image containing its own content is an important issue, but existing methods followed relatively simple approaches, leaving room for improvement especially when incorporating significant style changes. In response, we propose an advanced normalization technique based on adaptive convolution (AdaCoN), in order to properly impose style information into the content of an input image. In detail, after locally standardizing the content representation in a channel-wise manner, AdaCoN performs adaptive convolution where the convolution filter weights are dynamically estimated using the encoded style representation. The flexibility of AdaCoN can handle complicated image translation tasks involving significant style changes. Our qualitative and quantitative experiments demonstrate the superiority of our proposed method against various existing approaches that inject the style into the content.
author: Wonwoong Cho[^1], Kangyeol Kim, Eungyeup Kim, Hyunwoo J. Kim, Jaegul Choo
Korea University
`{tyflehd21,kky1994,yhy1254,hyunwoojkim,firstname.lastname@example.com`
bibliography: mybib.bib
title: Unpaired Image Translation via Adaptive Convolution-based Normalization; Supplementary material

# Introduction

Recently, unpaired image-to-image translation  has been actively studied as one of the major research areas. It aims to learn inter-domain mappings without paired images, such that deep neural networks can translate a given image from one domain to another (e.g., real photo ${\Rightarrow}$ artwork). However, these methods bear a fundamental limitation of generating a uni-modal output given a single image even if multiple diverse outputs may exist. In response, several approaches  have been proposed to achieve the multi-modality that indicates the capability of generating multiple outputs given a single input image by taking an additional input, such as an exemplar image conveying detailed style information to transfer.

Although exemplar-based image translation achieves multi-modality of outputs owing to its flexibility in reflecting the exemplar image that gives fine details of intended style, there still remains the issue of how to properly impose the style feature extracted from an exemplar image into a content image. Previous approaches  commonly follows two steps of first standardizing features and then applying a particular transformation, where the first step can be regarded as removing the existing style information of an input image and the second step plays a role of imposing the exemplar style to the style-neutralized input feature.

As one of the state-of-the-art methods, adaptive instance normalization (AdaIN)  has been successfully utilized to combine content and style in a slew of studies . AdaIN incorporates different features by matching each channel's first-order statistics , e.g., the mean and the variance, in the content to those in the style. To this end, AdaIN first standardizes each channel of content feature and adaptively performs channel-wise scaling and shifting using the parameters regressed by the style feature. Another recently proposed method called group-wise deep whitening-and-coloring transformation (GDWCT)  has shown superior capability of imposing drastically different styles by matching higher-order statistics such as covariance, which we call the coloring transformation, in addition to the first-order ones.

In the above methods, we claim that the second step of imposing the target statistics can be viewed as a simpler variant or a special case of a convolution operation, as illustrated in Fig. . That is, (a) the channel-wise affine transformation used in AdaIN can be viewed as the channel-wise $1\times 1$ convolution. (b) On the other hand, the coloring transformation of GDWCT, which matches the target covariance, can be considered as the $1 \times 1$ convolution operation that generates each output channel as a linear combination of the entire input channels.[^2] However, these methods tend to fail in handling a dramatic shape change because the methods have limited capability in translating significant transfiguration.

From this unified perspective of a convolution operation, these existing methods relied only on its simpler forms with only using $1\times 1$ convolution filters, and thus, the potentials of leveraging general convolution operations with larger-than-$1\times 1$ filters when injecting target style has not yet been fully explored.

Inspired by this, we propose an adaptive convolution-based normalization (AdaCoN) as an advanced method to inject the target style to a given image. AdaCoN is basically composed of two steps of standardization and adaptive convolution. First, the standardization is locally performed on each sub-region of an input activation map where the convolution filter is applied, similar to previous work . Second, AdaCoN performs adaptive convolution where the (larger-than-$1\times 1$) convolution filter weights are dynamically estimated using the encoded style representation.

By taking into account spatial patterns due to a convolution operation, we hypothesize that AdaCoN is capable of flexibly performing a spatially-adaptive image translation, which can potentially handle complicated image translation tasks involving significant style changes. In this sense, AdaCoN has something in common with the recent success in patch-based style transfer  that dynamically applies different styles to each patch of an input image.

In order to verify the superiority of AdaCoN, we conduct both quantitative and qualitative experiments that compare different normalization methods while maintaining the same model architectures.

# Related work

#### Unpaired image translation.

Unpaired image translation aims to transform an input image from one domain to another without paired images. Numerous approaches  have been proposed for this task. Recently, multimodal image translation methods, capable of yielding multiple different images given a particular image, have also been studied . These studies take similar approaches to address the uni-modality problem of previous methods by incorporating an exemplar image as a guidance for image translation. In addition, they assume that a latent image space can be disentangled into the content space that contains an underlying structure of images and the style space that maintains a domain-specific feature. However, they propose different methods for integrating the disentangled content feature from the input image and the style feature from the exemplar image. To be specific, inspired by AdaIN , MUNIT  adopts the idea of matching the statistics between the content and the style features. Extending this idea, GDWCT  leverages higher-order statistics compared to the previous method, enhancing the quality of generated images. Meanwhile, DRIT  simply concatenates the content and the style features to perform image translation. However, these methods have a limited capability to handle the drastic changes between the domains. A recently proposed method called instaGAN  tackles this problem by taking the segmentation mask as additional input, which serves as strong hint for translation.

#### Adaptive convolution.

Unlike standard convolution layers where the filter weights are trainable constant values, an adaptive convolution layer uses varying filter weights dynamically determined by input data. Based on this idea, dynamic filter networks  proposed to take an auxiliary input image to determine convolution filter weights in an video prediction task. Furthermore, Kang et al.  showed that convolution filter weights from the side information such as camera perspective or noise level can be utilized to improve the performance of classification task. Recent studies proposed to apply adaptive convolution to a variety of tasks such as semantic segmentation  and motion prediction . In this paper, we propose AdaCoN, which adaptively obtains convolution weights associated with convolution-based normalization for an image translation task.

# Proposed Methods

In this section, we briefly describe our backbone networks for an image translation task. Afterwards, we concretely describe our proposed method in detail.

## Translation backbone

#### Networks overview.

Let ${x_{A}}$ and ${x_{B}}$ denote randomly sampled images from two different domains of ${\mathcal{X}_A}$ and ${\mathcal{X}_B}$, respectively. Given two images, our networks translate ${x_{A}}$ from domain ${\mathcal{X}_A}$ to domain ${\mathcal{X}_B}$ as well as ${x_{B}}$ from domain ${\mathcal{X}_B}$ to domain ${\mathcal{X}_A}$. To this end, we adopt the disentangling strategy  that decomposes an image into a domain-invariant content feature (e.g., an identity of a person) and a domain-specific style feature (e.g., the hair length in the female domain). This can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
    z^c_A, z^s_A = E_A^c(x_A), E_A^s(x_A), \qquad\qquad z^c_B, z^s_B = E_B^c(x_B), E_B^s(x_B),
\end{aligned}$$ where {${E_A^c}$ ,${E_B^c}$} are content encoders and {${E_A^s}$, ${E_B^s}$} are style encoders. By combining the content and the style features of the different domains {${(z^c_B,z^s_A)}$, ${(z^c_A,z^s_B)}$} and forwarding it to decoders {${G_A, G_B}$}, we obtain the translated results {${x_{B\rightarrow A}}$, ${x_{A\rightarrow B}}$}, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
x_{A\rightarrow B}=G_B(\textrm{AdaCoN}(z^c_A,z^s_B)),\qquad\qquad x_{B\rightarrow A}=G_A(\textrm{AdaCoN}(z^c_B,z^s_A)),
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\textrm{AdaCoN}}$ indicates our adaptive convolution-based normalization that incorporates given content and style features. As shown in Fig. , for example, given ${\mathcal{X}_{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{X}_{B}}$ in the woman and the man domains, respectively, let us assume that our networks translate the woman to the man ${x_{A\rightarrow B}}$. (a) We first extract the content feature ${z^c_A}$ from a woman image ${x_A}$ and the style feature ${z^s_{B}}$ from a man image ${x_B}$ by forwarding each image into the content encoder ${E_A^c}$ and the style encoder ${E_B^s}$. (b) We next inject the style to the content feature through AdaCoN and (c) forward the combined features into the decoder ${G_A}$. After obtaining a fake man image ${x_{AB}}$, (d) we exploit the fake image as an input of a discriminator ${D_A}$ that encourages the generated image distribution to be close to the real image distribution. (e) Lastly, we repeat the processes of (a)-(c) in order to obtain a reconstructed woman image ${x_{ABA}}$, enabling our networks to maintain an original identity. In this manner, our networks are trained to translate the images between two different domains.

#### Loss functions.

Our networks are composed of several losses, and each term plays a crucial role in appropriately training our networks. In order to avoid redundancy, we focus on a translation of ${(\mathcal{X}_A\rightarrow{\mathcal{X}_B}\rightarrow{\mathcal{X}_A})}$ from this point on. First, we leverage the pixel-level reconstruction losses, such as the cycle-consistency loss and the identity loss  in order to guarantee the high-quality of generated images. The image reconstruction losses can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
    \mathcal{L}_{cyc}^{A\rightarrow B\rightarrow A}=
    \mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}\left[\lVert x_{A\rightarrow B\rightarrow A}-x_A\rVert_1\right],
    \qquad\qquad
    \mathcal{L}_{i}^{A\rightarrow A}=
    \mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}\left[\lVert x_{A\rightarrow A}-x_A\rVert_1\right].
\end{aligned}$$ We also use latent-level reconstruction losses that encourage the networks to impose style information while maintaining the original content during the forwarding phase. First, the style reconstruction loss is computed between the style features of ${(z^s_{A\rightarrow{B}}, z^s_B)}$, which makes our networks properly reflect the style because ${z^s_{A\rightarrow{B}}}$ is constrained to be equivalent to ${z^s_{B}}$. Second, the content reconstruction loss is computed between $({z^c_A, z^c_{A\rightarrow{B}})}$, and this encourages the networks to maintain the original content ${z^c_A}$ after performing a translation. These two losses can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
    \mathcal{L}_{s}^{A\rightarrow B}=\mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}~[\lVert E_{B}^s(x_{A\rightarrow B})-E_B^s(x_B) \rVert_1],
    \qquad\qquad
    \mathcal{L}_{c}^{A\rightarrow B}=\mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}[\lVert E_B^c(x_{A\rightarrow B})-E_A^c(x_A) \rVert_1]
\end{aligned}$$ Lastly, the adversarial loss  is used to minimize the distance of the two distributions of the real images in a target domain and the generated images. For this purpose, we exploit LSGAN  as our adversarial loss, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
    \mathcal{L}_{D_{adv}}^{B}=\tfrac{1}{2}\mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}[(D(x_B)-1)^2]+\tfrac{1}{2}\mathop{{}\mathbb{E}_{x_{A\rightarrow{B}}}}[(D(x_{A\rightarrow{B}}))^2],
    \quad
    \mathcal{L}_{G_{adv}}^{B}=\tfrac{1}{2}\mathop{{}\mathbb{E}}[(D(x_{A\rightarrow{B}})-1)^2]
\end{aligned}$$ Note that our translation backbone is trained to translate in both directions of ${(\mathcal{X}_A\rightarrow{\mathcal{X}_B}\rightarrow{\mathcal{X}_A})}$ and ${(\mathcal{X}_B\rightarrow{\mathcal{X}_A}\rightarrow{\mathcal{X}_B})}$. Finally, our full loss is formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
    \mathcal{L}_D&=\mathcal{L}_{D_{adv}}^A+\mathcal{L}_{D_{adv}}^B\\
    \mathcal{L}_G&=\mathcal{L}_{G_{adv}}^A+\mathcal{L}_{G_{adv}}^B+\lambda_{latent}(\mathcal{L}_s+\mathcal{L}_c)+\lambda_{pixel}(\mathcal{L}_{cyc}+\mathcal{L}_i^{A\rightarrow{A}}+\mathcal{L}_i^{B\rightarrow{B}}),
\end{aligned}$$ where each term without the domain notation is bidirectionally applied within two different domains, and we empirically set ${\lambda_{latent}=1}$ and ${\lambda_{pixel}=10}$.

## Adaptive convolution-based normalization (AdaCoN)

The goal of AdaCoN is to produce an output feature ${z_{out}}$ that can reflect the style of ${z_s}$ while maintaining the identity of ${z_c}$. The combined feature ${z_{out}}$ is used as input to a decoder to generate a translated image. Note that we omit the domain notation in this section for brevity.

### Basic components

As illustrated in Fig.  (h), AdaCoN is composed of a style branch (h1) to reflect the style and a content branch (h2) that aims to maintain the content identity. Given the content ${z_c}$ and the style ${z_s}$, the style branch learns to inject the style into the content. On the other hand, the content branch learns to keep the essential information of the given ${z_c}$, so that the output of AdaCoN can maintain its original identity. Lastly, In the joining step (h3), the outputs of the branches are concatenated and forwarded into a subsequent convolution layer. Note that an additional analysis of this structure is provided in Appendix.

### Style branch

#### Standardization function.

${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ normalizes the content feature ${z_c}$ before applying adaptive convolution. Specifically, we compute the statistics of ${z_c}$ from the channel-wise local patch of the size ${kH \times kW}$, where ${kH}$ and ${kW}$ are a kernel height and a kernel width, respectively. We use ${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ because locally computed statistics can be more effective in normalizing a given feature than globally computed ones. Our standardization is formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:adaptive convolution-based normalization, standardization}
    \Bar{z}_c=g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}(z_c)=\frac{\phi(z_c)-\mu_{\tiny kH,kW}(\phi(z_c))}{\sigma_{\tiny kH,kW}(\phi(z_c))},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\phi}$ denotes an unfolding operation that amasses every patch of ${z_c}$ and unites it into one tensor. Fig. (a) concretely describes the procedure. (a1) given ${z_c} \in \mathbb{R}^{C\times H\times W}$, (a2) ${\phi}$ extracts each sliding local block in ${\mathbb{R}^{C\times kH\times kW}}$ from the zero-padded ${z_c}$ and the extracted blocks are united into one tensor in ${\mathbb{R}^{H\times W \times C\times kH\times kW}}$. (a3) In order to perform the standardization, we compute the mean and the standard deviation along the dimensions of ${kH\times kW}$. (a4) We then normalize the content feature by exploiting its local channel-wise statistics. That is, ${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ performs a local normalization by using statistics specified in local patch. Note that ${H}$ and ${W}$ dimensions of ${\phi(z_c)}$ imply a spatial coordinate of the local patch where it is extracted from, such that the number of patches is equivalent to ${H\times W}$. (a5) Finally, we obtain the patch-wisely normalized feature in ${\mathbb{R}^{C\cdot kH\cdot kW \times H\times W}}$.

#### Adaptive convolution layer.

${f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ takes ${z_s}$ and ${z_c}$ as inputs and generates a stylized feature ${z_{cs}}$ as output. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig.  (b1), ${f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ first takes the style feature ${z_s}\in \mathbb{R}^{C\times kH\times kW}$ as an input and (b2) encodes ${z_s}$ to the convolution weights ${\hat{z}_s} \in {\mathbb{R}^{C\times O\times kH\times kW}}$, where ${O}$ is the number of output channels. Lastly, after unfolding it to the dimensions of ${\mathbb{R}^{C\cdot kH\cdot kW \times 1\times 1}}$, we apply this weights as the form of the convolution operation and obtain the stylized feature ${z_{cs}}$ (b3-b5). Finally, the adaptive convolution is formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:adaptive convolutional block}
    \hat{z}_s = \psi(z_s), \qquad
    f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}(\Bar{z}_c, \hat{z}_s) = \sum_{k=1}^{kH}\sum_{l=1}^{kW}[\Bar{z}_c(i+k-1,j+l-1)\hat{z}_s(k,l,n)],
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
    \;\; \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
    for\,i=1,...,H,\;j=1,...,W,\,and\;n=1,...,O,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\psi}$ represents a function that learns to properly encode a given style ${z_s}$ as the convolution weight ${\hat{z}_s}$ of ${f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$. ${i}$ and ${j}$ indicates the horizontal and the vertical coordinates, respectively, and ${H}$ and ${W}$ are the height and the width of ${\Bar{z}_{c}}$, respectively. Lastly, we add the mean of the style ${\mu_s}$ to the stylized feature ${z_{cs}}$ that can be viewed as a bias in the convolution operation.

# Experiments

This section describes the dataset and the baseline models we used for the experiments in Section . Subsequently, we discuss the comparison results with the baselines in Section . Lastly, we analyze our proposed method in detail in Section .

## Experimental settings

#### Dataset

We conduct evaluations with diverse datasets. First, we use CelebA dataset . This is a widely-used facial dataset involving multiple attributes. In order to construct a dataset with a large domain gap, we combine several attributes and newly form the dataset, such as (Male, Non-Bangs, Non-Smiling${\Rightarrow}$Female, Bangs, Smiling). Second, we use BAM dataset , composed of numerous artworks labeled with its artistic style, such as watercolor and vector-graphic. We use Watercolor $\Leftrightarrow$ Pen, Vector $\Leftrightarrow$ Pen, and Oil $\Leftrightarrow$ Pen, in order to demonstrate AdaCoN can perform image translation with a substantial domain difference. Finally, Edges $\Leftrightarrow$ Handbag  and Summer $\Leftrightarrow$ Winter  datasets are used to confirm the wide applicability of AdaCoN in diverse image translation tasks. We commonly set the size of the image as ${256 \times 256}$ in all the experiments.

#### Baseline methods

We compare our proposed method with the AdaIN  exploited in MUNIT, and GDWCT . The main difference among them lies in a specific method of combining the content feature with the style feature. As for the settings of ours, we explore various settings by adjusting the hyperparameters, such as the kernel size $\{3, 7, 11\}$ and the style dimension $\{8, 64, 128\}$ of AdaCoN. We empirically set the kernel size of 3 and the style dimension of 128. The specific results of those hyperparmeters are reported in the Section .

#### Training details

For training the models, we exploit the Adam optimizer  with ${\beta_1=0.5}$ and ${\beta_2=0.999}$. We empirically adopt the initialization method  for initializing our models. We also set one for the batch size and 0.0001 for the learning rate. We regularly decay the learning rate by half in every 50,000 iteration and the decaying is started from 200,000 iterations. Every model exploited in the experiments are trained for 500,000 iterations on a NVIDIA TITAN Xp GPU for 90 hours.

#### Evaluation metric

In order to evaluate the methods, we measure the the classification accuracy as well as content distance using a pretrained Inception-v3 model . To be specific, the content distance is measured by computing L2 distance of the features from intermediate layer of Inception-v3 between the input images and the translated ones. A lower content distance indicates that the gap between the them is relatively small. On the other hand, the evaluation on style injection is measured by the classification accuracy. This is because a well-trained image translation model can transform the domain of input image, so that a higher classification accuracy shows that the translation model successfully generates the prominent characteristics of the target domain. For training the classification model, we exploit the pretrained Inception-v3 and fine-tuned on CelebA dataset . To evaluate the performance on multi-attribute translation task, we train the classifiers with multi-label dataset.

## Baseline comparison

This section reports the comparison results of AdaCoN with other baseline methods. Quantitative results using the classification accuracy and the content distance are described in Section  and the qualitative results on CelebA dataset  is reported in Section .

```latex
\begin{table*}[t]\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
% \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Method}
\vspace{0.1cm}
&  $\mathbf{G_1} \Rightarrow \mathbf{G_2}$
&  $\mathbf{G_2} \Rightarrow \mathbf{G_1}$
&  $\mathbf{D_1} \Rightarrow \mathbf{D_2}$
&  $\mathbf{D_2} \Rightarrow \mathbf{D_1}$
&  $\mathbf{T_1} \Rightarrow \mathbf{T_2}$
&  $\mathbf{T_2} \Rightarrow \mathbf{T_1}$
&  $\mathbf{Z_1} \Rightarrow \mathbf{Z_2}$
&  $\mathbf{Z_2} \Rightarrow \mathbf{Z_1}$ \\ [0.03cm]
\midrule
\vspace{0.1cm}
\textbf{AdaIN}  &0.173/89.5 &  0.179/88.9 & 0.162/53.8 & 0.166/58.5  &  0.196/67.5 & 0.195/51.6 &  0.192/33.8  & 0.191/82.9 \\[0.05cm]
\vspace{0.1cm}
\textbf{GDWCT}  & 0.174/90.6 &  0.190/\textbf{90.4} & 0.173/52.3 & 0.175/64.4 & 0.202/64.9 & 0.200/47.9 &  0.197/30.5  &  0.199/85.6 \\[0.05cm]
\vspace{0.1cm}
\textbf{AdaCoN}  & 0.186/\textbf{91.6} &  0.184/90.0 & 0.202/\textbf{62.3} & 0.202/\textbf{66.5} &  0.193/\textbf{67.7} & 0.197/\textbf{57.5} & 0.199/\textbf{36.5} & 0.201/\textbf{86.7} \\
\bottomrule

\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\caption{Content loss and overall classification results(\%). We bidirectionally calculate the metric with CelebA dataset~\cite{liu2015faceattributes}. Each value in the cell indicates content loss and overall classification accuracy respectively. Abbreviations: $\mathbf{G_1}$(Male), $\mathbf{G_2}$(Female), $\mathbf{D_1}$(Young, Non-Smiling), $\mathbf{D_2}$(Old, Smiling), $\mathbf{T_1}$(Non-Bald, Young, Eyeglasses), $\mathbf{T_2}$(Bald, Old, Non-Eyeglasses),  $\mathbf{Z_1}$(Male, Non-Bangs, Non-Smiling),$\mathbf{Z_2}$(Female, Bangs, Smiling)  }

\label{Table:classification_accuracy}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
```

### Quantitative comparison

The classification accuracy increase when a translated output is correctly classified over every target attribute. As shown in Table. , our model displays the higher classification accuracy than other baselines. Moreover, the gap between AdaCoN and other baselines tends to be larger in multi-attribute translation task than the single attribute translation one. We believe this is because the multi-attribute translation tasks demand more considerable style injection than the single-attribute translation. For example, in case of ${(Z_1\Rightarrow Z_2)}$, in order to translate an image to the target attributes, the translation networks must change the regions of the manly characteristics, the hair, and the mouth. On the other hand, the case of ${(G_1\Rightarrow G_2)}$ requires to change only the regions of the manly characteristics, of which the amount of changes the task demands is relatively small. As for the content distance, even though AdaCoN obtains the highest score in the content distance in most translation cases, the small amount of differences ensures that AdaCoN can maintain content-identity. Considering our objective is strong reflection of the style, it is tolerable to lose the small amount of content information.

### Qualitative comparison

Fig.  shows the comparison results of AdaCoN with baselines on various attribute translation cases. The results demonstrate that AdaCoN can significantly reflect the style compared to baselines. For example, in case of (c) in the left macro column, whose the target attributes are (Bald, Non-Eyeglasses, Old), AdaCoN considerably applies the style of the exemplar, such that the result of AdaCoN represents the bald and old man without the eyeglasses. However, both AdaIN and GDWCT keep the hair even though the style of the exemplar includes the bald attribute. On the other hand, (a) in the right macro column, of which the target attribute is Male shows the difference of the amount of the style reflection between baselines. Specifically, in order to transfer the style of man, every baseline removes the make-up. Furthermore, AdaIN makes the beard while keeping the hair length long. GDWCT incompletely removes hair region while AdaCoN clearly removes the hair region. Since the long hair is the dominant characteristic of woman, the output of AdaCoN changed to short hair verifies the superior performance of AdaCoN in style reflection.

## Additional analysis

#### Effects of kernel size.

As shown in Fig. (a), the kernel size is relevant to the spatial-awareness. In the first row, the hair color on the chest of the woman of the content image is different from the other hair color of hers. Because the small receptive field is disadvantageous to recognizing the wide hair region, K3 fails in generating the hair on the chest naturally. On the other hand, K11 shows the better results in generating the hair region because it has the larger receptive field. Furthermore, we observe that the larger kernel size engenders the larger amount of style reflection. For instance, the results of K11 more strongly reflect the style, so that it distorts the eye and mouth of the content in the first row and represents more conspicuous texture in the second row, compared to the results of K3.

#### Effects of standardization function.

Fig. (b) shows the effects of the standardization function of AdaCoN. ${\textrm{AdaCoN}^{-g}}$ represents the results from a model trained without the standardization function ${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$. As shown in the results in both rows, ${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ plays essential role in injecting a style because the model trained without the standardization function ${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$ fails in performing a translation. We believe this is attributed to the conflicts of the style features between the content (input) and the style (exemplar) images. Specifically, the input image has both the content and the style features, so that if its style feature is not removed by ${g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaCoN}}}$, the style feature extracted from the exemplar can give rise to the degradation of the style reflection performance. As a consequence, the results demonstrate that our proposed standardization function based on local normalization is essential in AdaCoN.

#### Effects of style dimension (${O}$) and results on diverse dataset.

We compare the effects of ${O}$ that indicates the number of channels of ${z_{cs}}$. As discussed in Appendix, ${O}$ determines the extent of the style reflection to the output of AdaCoN ${z_{out}}$. As illustrated in Fig. (a), the results verify that the amount of the style reflection is directly affected by ${O}$. For instance, (a1) shows the hair region of ${O=128}$ is clearly removed while ${O=8}$ relatively keeps hair region. We further observe that a beard, the other dominant characteristic of man, is rather transferred in ${O=8}$. This shows that the low dimension of ${z_{cs}}$ tends to translate the domain with the minimum change. That is, this result demonstrates that the size of ${O}$ has a positive correlation with the amount of the style reflection, such that it can be usefully exploited when attempting to control the extent of the style reflection. Meanwhile, in order to verify AdaCoN can be exploited widely as well as robustly along the diverse dataset, we conduct the experiment in Fig. (b). The results consistently show that AdaCoN can translate a given image with a rich style.

# Conclusion

In this paper, we proposed the novel normalization method that can dramatically inject the style of the given exemplar in a image translation. AdaCoN locally performs the standardization of the content representation in order to properly reflect the given style, and the adaptive convolution layer, whose weights are dynamically extracted from the style encoding is applied to the standardized feature. We verify the superior performance of AdaCoN in drastic style injection through the experiments. We believe AdaCoN can be usefully exploited in diverse challenging image translation tasks that have a large gap between a source and a target domain, such as the multi-attribute translation. Finally, AdaCoN can be potentially used by incorporating an additional information with our novel normalization technique in various tasks such as object detection and semantic segmentation.

# Appendix

## Analysis on existing methods

In order to intensively comprehend the existing methods, this section reviews their principal operations and performs the comparative analysis of them.

### Review on baselines

The previous methods are typically composed of two steps, of which the first step is to normalize the content feature, and the second step is to reflect the style feature to the normalized content. We formulate this procedure as ${f(g(c), s)}$, where ${g}$ and ${f}$ represent the standardization and the style injection function, respectively. In this point of view, AdaIN can be illustrated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AdaIN}
        g_{\tiny\textrm{AdaIN}}(c)=\frac{c-\mu_{\tiny H,W}(c)}{\sigma_{\tiny H,W}(c)}, && f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaIN}}(g(c), s) = \sigma_{\tiny H,W}(s)(g(c))+\mu_{\tiny H,W}(s),

\end{aligned}$$ where ${H}$ and ${W}$ are the height and the width of an input feature. Each channel is normalized and combined independently. ${\sigma_{\tiny H,W}}$ and ${\mu_{\tiny H,W}}$ respectively denote the standard deviation and the mean computed along the ${H}$ and ${W}$ dimensions. In Eq. , the function ${g}$ normalizes an input content feature with the channel-wise mean and variance. On the other hand, the function ${f}$ transfers the mean ${\mu_{\tiny H,W}}(s)$ and the variance ${\sigma_{\tiny H,W}}(s)$ of the style to those of the normalized content ${g(c)}$. Meanwhile, GDWCT can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GDWCT}
        g_{\tiny\textrm{GDWCT}}(c)=Q_c\Lambda_c^{-\frac{1}{2}}Q_c^T(c-\mu_{\tiny H,W}(c)), && f_{\tiny\textrm{GDWCT}}(g(c), s)=Q_s\Lambda_s^{\frac{1}{2}}Q_s^Tg(c)+\mu_{\tiny H,W}(s),

\end{aligned}$$ where the matrices ${\{Q_c\Lambda_c Q^T_c, Q_s\Lambda_s Q^T_s\}}$ can be obtained by the eigendecomposition of the channel covariance matrix of the content and the style features, respectively. Each of ${\{Q_c,Q_s\}}$ indicates a square matrix composed of the eigenvectors, and ${\{\Lambda_c,\Lambda_s\}}$ are diagonal matrices whose each diagonal entry indicates an eigenvalue of a corresponding eigenvector in ${\{Q_c,Q_s\}}$. In Eq. , the function ${g}$ plays a similar role to Eq. , but forces the more strict rule, so it normalizes not only the mean and the variance but also the covariance of an input feature by making its covariance matrix the identity matrix. As for the style injection function ${f_{\tiny\textrm{GDWCT}}}$, it matches the first and the second-order statistics of normalized content feature to those of the style feature.

### Comparative analysis on baselines

The differences of the existing methods are clear when we regard those methods as a special case of the convolution operation. ${f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaIN}}}$ in Eq.  can be represented as the $1 \times 1$ depth-wise convolution with the bias since adaptive parameters of ${f_{\tiny\textrm{GDWCT}}}$ identically scale and shift along channels. Meanwhile, ${f_{\tiny\textrm{GDWCT}}}$ in Eq.  can be viewed as the $1 \times 1$ convolution layer, of which the weights are ${Q_s\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}_s} Q^T_s}$ and the bias is ${\mu_{\tiny H,W}(s)}$. This is because the vector-matrix multiplication of a row vector of ${Q_s\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}_s} Q^T_s} \in  {\mathbb{R}^{C\times C}}$ by the matrix ${g(c)} \in {\mathbb{R}^{C\times HW}}$ generates a new row vector in ${\mathbb{R}^{1\times HW}}$. This is identical to the $1 \times 1$ convolution operation, whose the output channel is one. From the aforementioned view, we can intensively explore these style injection functions. ${f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaIN}}}$ can be expected to transfer the lowest amount of style as it injects the style along channel, such that it engenders a relatively high consistency with the content compared to other methods. On the other hand, ${f_{\tiny\textrm{GDWCT}}}$ can be thought as a stronger combining method than ${f_{\tiny\textrm{AdaIN}}}$ because it generates the channel dimension of the content feature as a linear combination of the content feature channels. Even though GDWCT accomplishes more drastic changes of the style compared to AdaIN since it carries out mixing channel information of the content, we claim that even more dramatic changes can be achieved if the spatial information is simultaneously considered. Hence, we propose ${n\times n}$ adaptive convolution-based normalization, whose weights are extracted from the style. We believe this can increase a transferring capacity of a given style.

## Discussion on branch-separation

Fully exploiting the adaptive convolution-based normalization at the intermediate layers may engender considerable distortions of the content information because the spatial information as well as the channel information of the output features of AdaCoN is entirely different from those of the input features. Considering one of the task objectives is maintaining an input identity, we posit that a combination of the adaptive convolution-based normalization with the general convolution layer is reasonable choice for performing the translation. Moreover, through separating branches, we can control the amount of the style injection by changing ${O}$ that indicates the number of style dimensions. That is, the small ${O}$ gives rise to the low injection of the style.

## Additional results

Fig. ,  show the additional results of AdaCoN on the various image translation tasks.

[^1]: These authors contributed equally

[^2]: The additional illustration can be found in Appendix.


abstract: The status of present theoretical description of very high energy hadronic interactions is reviewed. The impact of new results of accelerator and cosmic ray experiments on hadronic interaction model constructions is discussed in detail. Special attention is payed to remaining uncertainties in model extrapolations into the ultra-high energy domain, in particular, concerning model predictions for the muon component of extensive air showers. New promising theoretical approaches are outlined and future experimental prospects are discussed.
address: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut für Kernphysik, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany; D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, 119992 Moscow, Russia
author: Sergey Ostapchenko
title: High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions – an Overview

# Introduction

The basic method of studying very high energy cosmic rays (CR) is the air shower technique, which amounts to investigate nuclear-electro-magnetic cascades – extensive air showers (EAS) – induced by energetic cosmic ray particles in the atmosphere. Contemporary EAS experiments resemble to a large extent their accelerator counterparts in the sense that in both cases one applies sophisticated simulation procedures to obtain a good understanding of the measurements and to interprete the data. In CR experiments an unavoidable complication is that one deals with particle interactions at energies significantly in excess of those of present colliders. In particular, this is a severe problem for the description of the backbone of air showers – the hadronic cascade, as the corresponding microscopic theory – perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (pQCD) – is inapplicable for the treatment of general hadronic collisions and the data on secondary particle production in the fragmentation region, being of crucial importance for the description of EAS development, are rather scarce, especially, for scattering on nuclear targets. The situation can be improved by employing phenomenological hadronic Monte Carlo (MC) models, e.g. DPMJET , QGSJET , SIBYLL , or the new QGSJET-II and EPOS models. Being based on some underlying theoretical approaches, they relate different interaction characteristics to each other and allow one to extrapolate the interaction picture to different kinematic regions and for different types of colliding particles, within particular model framework. Correspondingly, they are characterized by a restricted number of adjustable parameters, which can be fitted with available data. However, any model is only a model, its microscopic content being restricted by only a number of possible physics mechanisms. Thus, one can not exclude the possibility that something important is missing, especially, concerning the very high energy range. On the other hand, even the underlying theoretical ideas may appear to be wrong. This explains the need for alternative model approaches and for continuing tests of model validity, using both accelerator and cosmic ray data. Meanwhile, the spread in model predictions may give some feeling on the corresponding uncertainties .

# Basic physics

It is presently commonly accepted that high energy hadronic (nuclear) collisions are mediated by multiple parton cascades, proceeding in parallel. At not too high energies all parton branchings in a cascade are characterized by a small 4-momentum squared $q^2$ transferred, the processes generally referred to as non-perturbative 'soft' ones. By the uncertainty principle, at each step the newly emitted parton is separated from its parent by a non-small distance $\Delta b^2\sim 1/q^2$ in the transverse plane. As a consequence, the interaction region widens with energy, remaining at the same moment rather dilute, with a small parton density per unit area. On the other hand, with the energy increasing one observes a sizable contribution of so-called 'semi-hard' processes, where some parton emissions proceed with a comparatively large momentum transfer $q^2>Q_0^2$, $Q_0^2$ being some cutoff for pQCD being applicable, and result in the production of observed hadron jets of high $p_t$. The smallness of the strong coupling $\alpha_s(q^2)$, characteristic for such processes, is compensated by large logarithmic factors and by high number of partons in the cascade . Such 'hard' parton branchings proceed with a negligible displacement in the transverse plane, leading to a rapid rise of parton densities. Thus, one can to a some extent separate hadronic collisions at large and small impact parameters. The former are characterized by low parton densities and mainly proceed via non-perturbative soft processes. The latter are more and more dominated with increasing energy by the contribution of semi-hard processes; one deals there with large numbers of partons being closely packed, which results in significant non-linear effects: different cascades fuse together, preventing parton densities from further increase .

How this picture transforms in the very high energy limit? There, dominant semi-hard contributions look as follows. First, the underlying parton cascade develops in the soft low virtuality region, with small $x$ partons diffusing towards larger impact parameters. Then, hard parton branchings become efficient; new partons are produced without sizable transverse displacements, contributing to the overall parton density increase at a given point. As the result, the 'black' high density region extends to larger and larger impact parameters. On the other hand, the dilute peripheral region always persists outside the 'black' one, being formed by purely soft parton cascading. In general, one expects that with increasing energy the parton density in the 'black' region is saturated up to comparatively high values of parton virtualities and the relevant processes can, in principle, be described within the perturbative formalism , while the peripheral region remains governed by non-perturbative physics. According to present data, the relative sizes of the dense and the dilute areas remain comparable in the collider energy range , the peripheral collisions thus giving an important contribution to observed quantities.

In reality, the discussed separation of central and peripheral collisions is rather crude, as the average parton densities rise gradually with decreasing impact parameter. Thus, there exists an important 'transition' region of moderately large impact parameters, characterized by large but not yet saturated parton densities, where the contributions of both soft and semi-hard processes are of equal importance, and where non-linear parton effects provide sizable corrections. In fact, it is the treatment of such non-linear interaction contributions in the 'dense' and in the 'transition' regimes which is the main challenge for contemporary hadronic interaction models.

# Model approaches

The QGSJET model, being based on the Pomeron phenomenology , describes hadronic multiple scattering processes as multiple exchanges of composite objects – Pomerons, corresponding to independent microscopic parton cascades. For the soft low virtuality cascades a phenomenological 'soft' Pomeron amplitude is employed, whereas semi-hard scattering processes are treated as exchanges of 'semi-hard Pomerons', the latter composed of a piece of QCD parton ladder 'sandwiched' between two soft Pomerons ; the soft Pomerons and the ladder describing correspondingly the low and high virtuality parts of the underlying parton cascade. The principal feature of QGSJET-II is the treatment of non-linear parton effects described as Pomeron-Pomeron interactions, based on all order re-summation of the corresponding Reggeon Field Theory diagrams . The basic assumption of the scheme is that Pomeron-Pomeron coupling is dominated by non-perturbative parton processes and can be described by means of phenomenological multi-Pomeron vertices. The approach allows one to obtain a consistent description of various hadronic cross sections and structure functions, including diffractive ones, for a fixed, energy-independent $Q_0$-cutoff . Presently it is the most advanced model for the description of hadronic interactions in the peripheral and the 'transition' regimes. However, in central collisions one may expect sizable corrections to come from 'hard' (high $q^2$) Pomeron-Pomeron coupling, which is neglected in QGSJET-II. A reasonable agreement of the model predictions for central nucleus-nucleus collisions with the data of RHIC collider indicates the smallness of such effects . Nevertheless, the situation may change at much higher energies.

SIBYLL 2.1 also employs Pomeron formalism for the description of soft processes, while semi-hard ones are treated in the framework of the mini-jet approach , which is qualitatively similar to the above-discussed 'semi-hard Pomeron' scheme (the differences between the two approaches are discussed in ). The treatment of non-linear effects in that model is essentially orthogonal to the one in QGSJET-II, being based on the parton saturation approach . Namely, it is assumed that semi-hard processes result in the production of partons of transverse momenta larger than some effective energy-dependent saturation scale, $Q^2_0=Q^2_{\rm sat}(s)$, for which the double leading-log ansatz is used. However, the correlation between actual parton densities and the saturation scale holds in the model only in average sense, i.e. it reflects the increase of the average density with energy; the same scale is used both for dense central and for dilute peripheral collisions. On the other hand, non-linear effects are neglected for the 'soft' interaction component. The latter is partly cured in DPMJET-III , taking into consideration lowest order diagrams for Pomeron-Pomeron interactions.

The EPOS model, being the successor to NEXUS , employs the above-discussed soft and semi-hard Pomeron scheme and, in contrast to all other MC generators, takes into account energy-momentum correlations between multiple re-scatterings (see also for a qualitative discussion). The description of non-linear effects is based on an effective treatment of lowest order Pomeron-Pomeron interaction graphs, with the corresponding parameters being adjusted from comparison with RHIC data. A big advantage of the model is an excellent calibration to available accelerator data. However, its extrapolation towards very high energies may depend on the adopted empirical parameterizations for non-linear interaction contributions.

# Model predictions and experimental data

Although the spread in contemporary model predictions for EAS characteristics is much more moderate than ten years ago , it is still quite significant. Among the most model-dependent quantities is the shower maximum position, which depends on the corresponding results for total inelastic and diffractive cross sections and for the inelasticity of proton-air interactions. The predicted inelastic cross sections of different models stay in reasonable agreement at collider energy range and sizably diverge at highest CR energies, the largest values coming from the SIBYLL model. On the other hand, model predictions for the inelasticity of proton-air interactions and for the rate of diffraction processes differ significantly at all energies. In general, both cross sections and inelasticities are likely to be dominated by the contribution of hadronic collisions in the peripheral and the 'transition' regimes, for which QGSJET-II provides a more elaborate description, compared to other MC generators. An important test of model predictions will be provided by the LHCf experiment , which will measure leading neutron spectra in proton-proton collisions. This observable appears to be sensitive both to the average inelasticity and to projectile proton diffraction dissociation; there are almost an order of magnitude differences in model predictions for the forward neutron spectra, which can be well discriminated by the experiment . On the other hand, the high energy behavior of the total proton-proton cross section will be reliably fixed by the corresponding LHC measurement.

An important topic are model predictions for the CR muon component. Here one has to distinguish between the results for inclusive muon spectra and for EAS muon content for a given primary energy. The former are dominated by single interactions of primary protons of energies in average only an order of magnitude higher than the ones of measured muons. Due to the steepness of the primary CR spectrum, the corresponding results are very sensitive to the shape of the forward pion and kaon spectra in proton-air collisions. Comparing with recent accelerator measurements , one finds that the old QGSJET predicts too soft pion spectra, while SIBYLL and QGSJET-II stay in a reasonably good agreement with data. However, the energy dependence is quite different in the two models: SIBYLL predicts rather precise Feynman scaling in the energy range of interest ($0.1\div 10$ TeV), which is supported by inclusive muon flux measurements , whereas QGSJET-II shows a noticeable scaling violation.

The EAS muon content is formed during a multi-step hadronic cascade process and mainly depends on the total multiplicity of hadron-air collisions. The differences between SIBYLL and QGSJET-II for the predicted $N_{\mu}$ are only at $10\div 15$% level and from general considerations one might expect that the old QGSJET gives the upper limit for the EAS muon number . However, the EPOS predictions for $N_{\mu}$ appeared to be significantly higher than in any other model , being in particular almost a factor of two in excess of those of QGSJET-II. This seems only possible if the multiplicity of pion-air collisions in increased by a similar large factor . While it is problematic to verify that in collider experiments, EPOS predictions can be confronted with KASCADE air shower data ; if supported by KASCADE, EPOS may lead to a serious revision of present views on CR composition in the above-knee energy range.

Informative discussions with R. Engel, T. Pierog, and M. Strikman are highly acknowledged.

# References


abstract: In a recent article (arXiv:1006.1728) K.Michielsen *et al.* claim that a simple corpuscular model can explain many quantum optics experiments. We discuss these claims and show that their proposal fails at several levels. Finally, we propose an experiment to falsify the model.
author: Radu Ionicioiu
title: Beam-splitters don't have memory: a comment on "Event-based corpuscular model for quantum optics experiments" by K.Michielsen *et al.*

The proposal we discuss here has been introduced recently in several articles . This model, called the event-based corpuscular model (EBCM), claims to explain many quantum optics experiments, including interference, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Hanbury Brown-Twiss effects. The model uses a classical simulation on a event-by-event basis, is causal and satisfies Einstein's locality. Moreover, the authors claim that EBCM is universal and can accommodate even correlations not explained by Maxwell's theory . Here we critically evaluate these claims and show that EBCM fails at several levels as a model of reality.

## A logical problem

Reading section II.3 in Ref. it becomes clear that the authors do not accept the existence of destructive interference. Mathematically, they refuse the reality of two terms (events) with zero sum (annihilating each-other) : "Therefore, if we want to identify these "events" with the clicks that we observe, we run into a logical contradiction: To perform the sums in Eq. (3), we have to generate events that in the end cannot be interpreted as clicks since in this particular case no detector clicks are observed."

Extending this type of argument, the authors should also deny the existence of, e.g., two equally opposing forces acting on a classical object. Since the total force is zero, the two forces cancelling each-other cannot have a "real existence" as they produce no observable effect (i.e., movement).

## Failure as a corpuscular model

The first corpuscular theory has been proposed by Newton following his optics experiments. As the theory failed to explain an accumulating body of data, it has been gradually abandoned in the favour of the wave model. We give a short list of phenomena not explained in a corpuscular model.

A corpuscular theory doesn't explain the broadening of a plane wave passing through a narrow slit (with dimensions of the same order as the wavelength). This is also valid in the EBCM model and the authors do not offer any explanation of diffraction.

Since a corpuscular theory has no concept of wavelength, there is no explanation of how a resonant cavity or an antenna works.

Due to their bosonic nature, photons exhibit bunching at a beam-splitter when entering from different ports. Thus the state $| 1 \rangle_a| 1 \rangle_b$ evolves to $| 2 \rangle_a| 0 \rangle_b+ | 0 \rangle_a| 2 \rangle_b$, where the subscripts $a,b$ denote the corresponding input or output modes. Such a behaviour is not only unexplained, but falls completely outside the model. In EBCM only one photon at a time is allowed, by construction, to enter the beamsplitter ; therefore it cannot describe multi-photon states like the recently observed $NOON$ states $| N \rangle_a| 0 \rangle_b+ | 0 \rangle_a| N \rangle_b$ .

As a corpuscular model claiming to be universal , EBCM inherits the same problem of explaining the above phenomena supported by hundreds of experiments. However, in several articles published about the EBCM the authors are silent about these facts .

## Failure to explain all the experimental data

The authors acknowledge that EBCM does not faithfully reproduce *all* experimental data – there is a transient period of a few hundred events in which the model fails to give the observed statistics. The first few hundred events are in stark contrast with the experimental data, contradicting not only the average number $\overline N$ of detector clicks, but also the standard deviation $\Delta N$ (a point not discussed by the authors). For a perfectly balanced Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) in which detector $D_0$ should register no clicks, during the transient period the simulation shows instead a large number (the majority) of events exactly in detector $D_0$. Such fluctuations are too large to be explained statistically – on average, the standard deviation should be $\sim \sqrt N$, where $N$ is the number or events. This bound is clearly violated in the simulations during the initial transient period. A physicist comparing experimental data with the predictions of the theory will rightly conclude that the model fails to reproduce the experiments. Instead of offering an explanation, the authors declare lightly : "However, as ample numerical simulations demonstrate, for many events, these first few "wrong" events do not significantly contribute to the averages and are therefore irrelevant for the comparison of the event-based simulation results with those of a wave theory."

It is not a standard scientific practice to exclude a data set unexplained by theory, even if these are only "a few hundred" – what if the experimental data are only a few hundred measurements? This observation raises questions about the ability of EBCM to explain the experiments.

## Failure to faithfully model a real beamsplitter

A central element of EBCM is the beamsplitter, modelled as a deterministic learning machine (DLM). The DLM has a set of internal registers (memory) which are continuously updated according to the state of the incident photon. A natural question is: Does a DLM faithfully model a real beamsplitter? Two arguments show that it fails to do so:
**Input/output symmetry.** A real beamsplitter is symmetric in inputs/outputs. In the laboratory one can rotate a BS by 180 degrees and swap inputs with outputs without affecting the experiments. This is not possible with the DLM model of a beamsplitter (see Fig.1 in ), where the outputs cannot be used as inputs.
**Multi-photon input.** The DLM model of a beamsplitter also fails to explain what happens when more that one photon is present at the input. The authors explicitly state : "The DLM receives a message on either input channel 0 or 1, never on both channels simultaneously."

## A gedankenexperiment to falsify EBCM

Next we propose an experiment to falsify the predictions of EBCM. The main difference between a standard wave theory (WT) – classical or quantum – and EBCM is in the way it treats single events. In WT a single event (i.e., a photon entering the interferometer) leaves no trace (memory) in the apparatus. The device behaves in the same way for the first event and for event number 10000. This is completely different in the EBCM, where the beamsplitter/DLM has a memory and the final statistics is build gradually according to the past events. This explains the existence of the transient period with the "wrong" statistics. The main idea behind the proposed experiment is to make the transient period arbitrarily large, such that the device cannot reproduce the observed measurements.

In WT is irrelevant if we collect the full data set in one big run or in several smaller ones. This is a standard practice in the lab, where an experiment can last several weeks and data collection is segmented in smaller runs of several hours. It also does not matter if in between those runs we shine or not light on the interferometer, as long as this light is not collected (the detectors are shut down). However, this is not so in EBCM.

The experiment is sketched in Fig.. A data source (green) sends photons ("messages", in EBCM) to the 0-input of a standard MZI (Fig.). We collect a block of data within the transient period, after which we "reset" the beamsplitter, *while keeping the source and detectors unchanged*. One way of doing a (software) reset is to use another source (the reset source, red) to send photons to the 1-input of the MZI. The role of the second source is to modify/reset the internal registers of the DLM and consequently to change the statistics of the data photons. As we are interested only in the statistics of the data source, we do not register the reset photons (e.g., we switch off the detectors during the time the reset source operates).

If each data block is collected after the DLM/beamsplitter has been reinitialised, the (arbitrarily large) set of data will not converge to the expected averages. Instead it will show the same mean value $\overline N$ and standard deviation $\Delta N$ as the transient period which, as noted in , do dot reproduce the experiments. In WT, since the device has no memory of photons passing through it, intercalating reset photons (not detected) with data photons does not change the statistics.

Many variations of this scenario are experimentally possible. We can have an alternating sequence of data and reset photons $(N_1, N'_1, N_2, N'_2, \ldots)$, where $N_i\, (N'_i)$ denotes the number of data (reset) photons. In one experiment we can send a reset photon after each data photon; in a different one we can send $10^4$ reset photons after 100 data photons. Provided the sum of all data photons is the same $\sum_i N_i= N$, a standard wave theory predicts that all these different experiments will show the same statistics. In contrast, in EBCM all these experiments will have (in general) different statistics.

Another way to reset the memory of the DLM/beamsplitter is to replace it with a new one (having the internal registers reinitialised) and then collect another batch of data. This "hardware" reset is more challenging experimentally, but theoretical possible. Again, in a standard WT this will not affect the data, in contrast to the EBCM, where it resets the statistics back to the transient period.

In conclusion, we have shown that the EBCM fails at several levels to describe a large body of phenomena and as such cannot be considered a valid model of reality.