abstract: Electric transport of double gated bilayer graphene devices is studied as a function of charge density and bandgap. A top gate electrode can be used to control locally the Fermi level to create a pn junction between the double-gated and single-gated region. These bilayer graphene pn diodes are characterized by non-linear currents and directional current rectification, and we show the rectified direction of the source-drain voltage can be controlled by using gate voltages. A systematic study of the pn junction characteristics allows to extract a gate-dependent bandgap value which ranges from 0 meV to 130 meV.
author: Hiroki Shioya; Michihisa Yamamoto; Saverio Russo; Monica F. Craciun; Seigo Tarucha
date: 2024-09-30
title: Gate tunable non-linear currents in bilayer graphene diodes

Graphene -a single layer of carbon atoms- is the thinnest known conductor with a room temperature charge carrier mobility considerably higher than silicon (i.e. more than $100,000 cm^2/Vs$). One of the major challenges in graphene-based electronics is that charge carrier conduction cannot be simply switched off by means of gate voltages because of the lack of a bandgap . While chemical functionalization constitutes a valuable approach to engineer a bandgap , bilayer graphene offers an alternative solution to this problem with a gate tunable bandgap . Indeed, bilayers can be continuously driven from the semimetal to insulator state simply by means of gate voltages. This remarkable property paves the way towards bilayer-based transistor and diode applications with large on/off ratio of the current.

The observation of an electric field tunable bandgap in bilayer graphene was reported in infrared optical spectroscopy and a method, which is different from that . However, a direct measure of this energy-gap in electrical transport experiments has so far been elusive due to the presence of disorder induced sub-gap states dominating the low energy transport properties. Indeed, systematic electrical transport experiments demonstrated that the temperature dependence of the bilayer graphene resistance for sub-gap energies is successfully described by mainly two parallel electrical transport channels . They are caused by variable range hopping (and by nearest neighbor hopping especially in the lower temperature region than variable range hopping ) and by thermally activated transport over the bandgap, respectively. The formation of bilayer graphene pn junctions has attracted considerable theoretical interest and it is a key element in graphene-based electronics. Though up to date there is only one experimental report on pn-junction devices, no evidence for a rectified current has yet been reported leaving graphene-based electronics still a pure academic exercise .

In this letter we show that the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics of the pn junction devices exhibit a rectifying behavior with the threshold given by the bandgap rather than the disorder induced sub-gap states.Then we analyze the I-V characteristics to derive the electric field tunable bandgap of bilayer graphene. We finally extract a gate-dependent bandgap value ranging from 0 meV to 130 meV in our double gated bilayer graphene devices.

The graphene devices are fabricated by mechanical exfoliation of Kish graphite on p-doped Si wafer coated by 285nm $SiO_{2}$, which acts as a uniform back gate. We have selected bilayer graphene flakes by analyzing the intensity of the green light of optical micrograph pictures of different flakes . Subsequently, we fabricated electrodes and local top gates by electron beam (EB) lithography, evaporation and lift-off process of respectively Ti/Au (25 nm/65 nm) for the electrodes and SiO2/Ti/Au (150 nm/25 nm/32 nm) for the top gates. Figure 1(a) shows an optical micrograph of a typical double gated pn-junction device.

The double-gated geometry allows us to independently control the Fermi level and the perpendicular electric field through the bilayer graphene. The polarity of the charge carriers -i.e. electrons (n) or holes (p)- can be controlled by tuning the Fermi level position via both top gate and back gate voltages. This property is used to create controllable pn-junctions. On the other hand, the external perpendicular electric field breaks the energetical symmetry between the two planes of the bilayer graphene resulting in the opening of a bandgap .

Here we use more than 5 different double gated pn-junction devices to the study of the electrical properties in a voltage-bias configuration (see Figure 1(b)) with top and back gate voltages as parameters and at a temperature of 4.2K. In all these bilayer pn-junction devices we observed similar I-V characteristics. Here we discuss the representative data obtained from one of them. To estimate the mobility (${\mu}$) of the charge carriers, we use the value of the conductance per square measured at high gate voltage i.e., $G_{\square}=ne {\mu}$, from which we have subtracted the contact resistance between bilayer graphene and Ti/Au . The density of charge carriers is given by the known capacitance to the gate, and using the known planar capacitance in the device channel we obtain $\mu = 650 cm^2 /V s$ at 4.2K. Thus the typical electron mean free path in our devices is about 16.5 nm, which is much shorter than the device channel. Therefore, the electron transport in our devices is diffusive.

Figure 2(a) shows a color coded plot of source-drain current ($I_{sd}$) measured for a constant source-drain voltage $V_{sd}=1mV$ as a function of top- and back-gate voltages, $V_{tg}$ and $V_{bg}$, respectively. The $I_{sd}$ shows two minima, one corresponding to the charge neutrality point of the double gated region -which depends on both $V_{tg}$ and $V_{bg}$- and the other corresponding to that of the region not covered by the top-gate -i.e. independent of $V_{tg}$. These two minima cross at $V_{tg} = 8V$ and $V_{bg} = -64V$ which is the global neutrality point for the whole device. Therefore, by adjusting the gate voltages we can prepare four different polarity regions, i.e. Pp, Pn, Np and Nn as indicated in Figure 2(a). For instance, for $V_{bg} {\le} -64V$ in the region of the flake without top-gate the Fermi level is in the valence band (P-doping). By application of the specific top-gated voltages the Fermi level of the double gated region can be brought from the valence (p-doping ) to the conduction band (n-doping) realizing a transition of a Pp to Pn-junction.

The I-V characteristics of double gated bilayer graphene devices measured for the Nn, Np and Pn conditions are shown in Fig. 2 (b), (c) and (d), respectively. For the Pp (or Nn) junction we observe linear I-V characteristics, whereas for the Pn (or Np) junctions, which are realized by the gate voltages near charge neutral points we consistently observe nonlinear I-V characteristics. This nonlinearity becomes more pronounced when the Fermi level is set in the opened bandgap of the p-region. Correspondingly, the non-linear I-V characteristic is also reflected in the $dI_{sd}/dV_{sd}$ *vs.* $V_{sd}$ characteristics (see Fig 2. (c) and (d)). The $dI_{sd}/dV_{sd}$ starts to increase progressively when $V_{sd}$ is tuned outside of the region, indicated with two arrows in Fig 2. (c) and (d): The $dI_{sd}/V_{sd}$ value is apparently reduced in the positive $V_{sd} (0mV {\le} V_{sd} {\le} 70mV)$ in Fig. 2 (c) and in the negative $V_{sd} (0mV {\ge} V_{sd} {\ge} -80mV)$ in Fig.2 (d), respectively. That is the rectified direction in the $V_{sd}$ axis, which changes with the polarities in the channel of the device, e.g. negative $V_{sd}$ for Pn and positive $V_{sd}$ for Np. This observation implies that in our devices the rectification direction of $V_{sd}$ can be controlled by selecting the appropriate gate voltage configuration. In addition, in a higher electric field -i.e. wider bandgap- we observed an even more pronounced non-linearity in the I-V characteristics(see Fig. 3 (c)). The zero-bias dip in conductance, see Fig. 2c and d, is likely to originate from both contact resistance and disorder induced sub-gap states. The energy range associated with this zero-bias dip is much smaller than the estimated energy gap, see Figs. 2(c)-2(e), highlighting a non-leading role of the contact resistance in these devices.

Contrary to conventional semiconductor pn-junctions, there is no so-called built in potential at a bilayer graphene pn interface. In the bilayer graphene devices the fringing field from the side edge of the top gate smears out the pn interface. Figure 3 (a) shows a simplified schematic of the band-bending at a pn bilayer interface. Here the bandgap is assumed to act as a potential barrier for carriers and to generate non-linear currents. We confirmed the validity of this model from measurements of the $V_{bg}$ dependence of the differential conductance, see figure 2 (e). In this figure the Fermi level is tuned from below to above the bandgap by changing $V_{bg}$ from -72.5V to -57.5V. The position and the width in $V_{sd}$ of the differential conductance depend on $V_{bg}$. This observation suggests that the non-linear current is a consequence of transport through a Pn interface where the gap acts as a potential barrier for charge carriers.

Within the proposed band-bending model we estimate the value of the electric field induced bandgap opened in bilayer graphene. A typical $dI_{sd}/dV_{sd}$ *vs.* $V_{sd}$ is shown in figure 3 (b). We start by analyzing the differential conductance curves with the quasi-Fermi level set as depicted in figure 3 (a), i.e. in the bandgap under the top gate (left region) and in the conduction band outside the top gate (right region). When the quasi-Fermi level reaches the bottom (top) of the conduction (valence) band under application of $V_{sd}$ an inflection point appears in the $dI_{sd}/dV_{sd}$ *vs.* $V_{sd}$ curves (see figure 3 (b) caption). For the forward $V_{sd}$, the carrier conduction will increase when the incident energy of carriers overcome the energy of the potential barrier. For the backward $V_{sd}$, the carrier conduction will increase when the carriers in the valence band in the P-region start to flow. Therefore, the two inflection points correspond to the situations where the quasi-Fermi level is located at the upper edge and the lower edge of the gap, respectively. The $V_{sd}$ range between the two inflection points in figure 3 (b) is 110mV, we can therefore infer that the opened bandgap value is 110meV for $V_{tg}=-40V$ and $V_{bg}=37.5V$. We apply this analysis for the data with combinations of gate voltages and derive the bandgap value ranging from 0meV to 130meV, see blue circles in figure 3 (c). Furthermore, we compare our estimates to those previously obtained from infrared optical spectroscopy , see red squares in figure 3 (c). The magnitude and the overall electric field dependence of the bandgap obtained from our electrical transport experiments are both in good agreement with those of the previous work .

In conclusion, we demonstrated that local electrostatic doping of bilayer graphene can be used to form pn diodes with nonlinear rectified current-voltage characteristics. The rectification behavior can be continuously tuned by means of gate voltages. From the analysis of the pn junction current-voltage characteristics we estimate a gate-dependent bandgap as large as 130mV, which is in agreement with previous optical studies. Our experimental findings demonstrate a step forward to future bilayer graphene diode applications.

(Acknowledgement) H.S. acknowledges financial support from GCOE for Phys. Sci. Frontier and from Project for Developing Innovation Systems, MEXT, Japan. M.Y. acknowledges financial support from Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists A (no. 20684011). S.T. acknowledges financial support from JST Strategic International Cooperative Program (GFG-JST and EPSRC-JST). S.R. and M.F.C. acknowledge financial support from EPSRC (Grant No. EP/G036101/1 and no. EP/J000396/1) and from the Royal Society Research Grant 2010/R2 (Grant no. SH-05052) and 2011/R1 (Grant No. SH-05323).


# Online Checkpoint Selection

In this section, we introduce the proposed data valuation method ** – a two-phase selection method using the training run of a gradient descent algorithm. The first phase selects informative checkpoints from the training algorithm, and the second phase computes the value each datapoint.

## Data valuation using training trajectories

We briefly review the TracIn method. Let $\mathcal{Z} = \{ z_i = (x_i , y_i)| i = 1,2,..,N\}$ be the training dataset for a supervised learning task with features $x_i \in \mathcal{X}$ and labels $y_i \in \mathcal{Y}$. Also, let $\mathcal{Z'} = \{ z'_j = (x'_j , y'_j)| j = 1,2,..,M\}$ be the valuation/test dataset which is used for assigning values/scores to a training datapoint $z\in \mathcal{Z}$. Additionally, let $\theta_1,...,\theta_T$ be a sequence of parameters generated by training with a given deep learning model on training dataset $\mathcal{Z}$ using a mini-batch SGD-like algorithm. TracIn defines the scores for each training datapoint $z$, given a valuation datapoint $z'$ as the first order approximation for decrease in $$l(\theta_{t+1},z') - l(\theta_t,z') =  \nabla l(\theta_t, z').(\theta_{t+1} - \theta_t)
\label{eqn:ap1}$$ where $l(\theta_t,z')$ is the loss(value function) on $z'$ using end-epoch model parameter $\theta_t$. The influence/score of any training point $z$ on the test set $\mathcal{Z'}$, being termed as *TracIn*$(z,\mathcal{Z}')$ uses parameters from uniformly selected end-epoch checkpoints $t = 1,2,..,T$ of a trained model and is defined as: $$TracIn(z,\mathcal{Z}') = \sum_{t=1}^T \nabla_{\theta_t} l (\theta_t, z).\nabla_{\theta_t} l (\theta_t, \mathcal{Z}')
\label{eq:tracin}$$

We argue that the uniformly selected end-epoch checkpoints might not be a good measure for the above mentioned approximation since it does not consider the intermediate checkpoints while approximating $(\theta_{t+1} - \theta_t)$ (from first order) to $\nabla_{\theta_t} l (\theta_t, z)$, that shall be necessary in a mini-batch update setup. Hence, we propose a better approximation over the uniformly selected checkpoints.

## Proposed Approximation

From first-order approximation of the value function (in this case test-set loss), we know $$l(\theta_{t+1},z') - l(\theta_t,z') =  \nabla l(\theta_t, z').(\theta_{t+1} - \theta_t)
\label{eqn:ap1}$$

Assuming $\theta_{t}^0 = \theta_t$ and $\theta_{t}^O = \theta_{t+1}$ (total $O$ minibatches in epoch $t$), we can rewrite Equation as:

$$\sum_{i=1}^O l(\theta_{t}^i,z') - l(\theta_{t}^{i-1},z') =  \sum_{i=1}^O (\theta_{t}^i - \theta_{t}^{i-1}) \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z')
\label{eqn:ap2}$$

In this context, we adopt the 2nd order approximation where $(\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z'))^2$ is an approximate form of $\nabla^2 l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z')$. So we rewrite Equation as:

$$\begin{aligned}
    & \Vec{\triangle}_{t}(z') =
    \sum_{i=1}^O l(\theta_{t}^i,z') - l(\theta_{t}^{i-1},z') = \nonumber \\ & \sum_{i=1}^O (\theta_{t}^i - \theta_{t}^{i-1}) \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z') \nonumber \\ & + 0.5*((\theta_{t}^i - \theta_{t}^{i-1}) \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z'))^2
\label{eqn:ap2c}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Vec{\triangle}_{t}(z')$ denotes change in test set loss over minibatches for epoch $t$.

Using the mini-batch weight update $\theta_{t}^{i} = \theta_{t}^{i-1} - \eta \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1},z_i)$ , we can rewrite Equation as:

$$\begin{aligned}
    \Vec{\triangle}_{t} (z') \approx -\eta \sum_{i=1}^O \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1},z_i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z') \nonumber \\  + 0.5*(\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1},z_i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{i-1}, z'))^2 \nonumber \\ \approx -\eta \sum_{i=1}^O \Vec{\mathcal{C}}_{i}^t(z_{i},z')
\label{eqn:ap6}
\end{aligned}$$

where $\Vec{\mathcal{C}}^{t}(z_{i},z')$ denotes the contribution of $z_{i}$ on $z'$ at epoch $t$ or similarity in gradients. $\Vec{\triangle}_{t} (z')$ is of the size $|$test set size$| \times$ 1 , while $\Vec{\mathcal{C}}^{t}(z,z')$ is of the size $|$test set size$| \times$ O

Mapping it to Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) problem where we want to form a set S containing $k$ out of $O$ checkpoints, the objective function comes to:

$$\min ||\sum_{i \in S_{t}}({\alpha_i \Vec{\mathcal{C}}_{i}^t(z_i,z')}) - \Vec{\triangle}_{t}(z')||_2 \hspace{3mm} s.t. ||\alpha||_0 \leq k$$

However, we propose to perform the selection in an online manner across epochs during the training. Hence, we propose an online version of OMP for selection of $k$ checkpoints.

## Phase 1: OMP based checkpoint selection

Consider the cumulative $\Delta_t$ vector that denotes the cumulative change in loss across epochs, $$I_t = \sum_{j=1}^t \Delta_j\ \ \forall t=1,...,T$$

In the online setting, at time $t$ we want to approximate: $$I_t \approx \sum_{j\in \mathcal{R}^t} \alpha_j S^t_j$$ where, $\mathcal{S}$ is the set having the gradient similarities of selected minibatches over time ad $\mathcal{R}$ is the set of selected checkpoint/minibatch indices. So $\mathcal{S}$ is of the size $|$test set size$| \times$ k. So, from Equation , we can rewrite the above approximation as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:finalapp}
     I_t \approx \eta \sum_{j\in \mathcal{R}^t} \alpha_j [\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z') \nonumber \\ + 0.5*(\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z'))^2]
\end{align\label{sec:method}}

The idea is to keep track of the selected checkpoints over time, and replace them with incoming checkpoints, based on their projections with the residual, which is the difference between the obtained estimate ($\xi = \sum_{i\in \{1,...,|\mathcal{S}|\}} \alpha_i S_i$) and the ground truth ($I^t$ in this case). The detailed description is provided in Algorithm \ref{algo:onlineomp} and \ref{algo:replace}.

% \textcolor{red}{Note for thought: Tweaking Online OMP algorithm to approximate the extrapolation during data valuation in Phase 2}
% Having obtained the set of checkpoints $S$, we compute the scores for each training point $z_i$ using the approximated estimate $\sum_{j\in \cS} \alpha_j S_j$.

 \begin{minipage}{0.46\textwidth}
 \begin{algorithm}[H]
 \caption{: OnlineCP}
 \label{algo:onlineomp}
 %\scriptsize
 %\label{algo:onlineomp}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State{\textbf{Input}:} $k$: Total number of checkpoints to be selected\\
$I$: Cumulative change in loss;
$C$: Gradient similarity

 \State \textbf{Initialize:}
 Set of selected components from C: $\mathcal{S}$ = $\phi$\\
 Set of weights for the selected components: $\alpha = zero_{|S|}$ \\
 Estimate $\xi = \sum_{i\in \{1,...,|\mathcal{S}|\}} \alpha_i S_i$, initially 0
%  Let the estimate $\xi = 0$ be the running estimate defined as $\sum_{i\in \{1,...,|\cS|\}} \alpha_i S_i $ where $\alpha_i\in \alpha$ and $S_i\in \cS$

 \For{t = 1,...,T}
 \State \textbf{Input:} $I_t, C_i^t , \forall i\in\{1,...,O\} , ||C_i||_2 = 1 $
 \State{\textbf{Process}:}
 \State  Update $\alpha : argmin_\alpha \|\sum_{i \in |S|}(\alpha_i S_i) - I^t||_2$
 \State Update $\xi : \sum_{i\in \{1,...,|\mathcal{S}|\}} \alpha_i S_i$
% \State $est = \sum_{i\in \{1,...,|\cS|\}} \alpha_i S_i $
% \State $res = I^t - est$
 \For{each batch $i \in O$:}
 \State ** Replacing selected checkpoints **
 \If{$|\mathcal{S}| = k$}
 \State $\mathcal{S}, \alpha, \xi$ = \textbf{Replace($I^t , \xi, \mathcal{S}, \alpha , C_i^t$)}
 \Else
 \State ** Add the checkpoints sequentially **
 \State  $\mathcal{S}\longleftarrow \mathcal{S}\cup \{C_i^t\}$
 \State  Update $\alpha$ ; Update $\xi$
 \EndIf
 \EndFor
 \EndFor
 \State \textbf{Output}:Final set of selected checkpoints , $\mathcal{S}$
 \end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.46\textwidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
 %\scriptsize
 \caption{: \textbf{Replace ($I^t , \xi, \mathcal{S}, \alpha , C_i^t$)}}
 \label{algo:replace}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State  $\rho = I^t - \xi$ \*//Residual
 \State $maxproj = -\infty$ \*// best projection from existing set
 \State $ind = \phi$ \* /index of the best projection from existing set
 \For{each index $j$ in $\mathcal{S}$:}
 %\State If{$|\cS| = k$}
 \State  $n\rho = \rho + \alpha_j*S_j$ \*// new residual on including $S_j$
 \State  $n\varrho = C_i^t . n\rho$  \*//projection of $C_i^t$ , incoming gradient
 \State  $\varrho = S_j . n\rho$  \*//projection of $S_j$, existing gradient
  \If{$n\varrho > \varrho$ and $n\varrho>maxproj$}
 \State maxproj $\longleftarrow$  $\varrho$
 \State $ind = j$
 \EndIf
 \EndFor
 \If{$ind \neq \phi$}
%  \State $S_{ind} \longleftarrow C_i^t$  \*//Replace $S_{ind}$ with $C_i^t$ which has higher projection than the best in set S: $S_{ind}$
 \State $S_{ind} \longleftarrow C_i^t$  \*//Replace the best existing projection in $S$ with the new projection
  \State Update $\alpha$ ; Update $\xi$
 \EndIf \\
 return $\mathcal{S}, \alpha, \xi$
 \end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
% \begin{algorithm}[H]
%  \scriptsize
%  \caption{: \textbf{Replace ($I^t , \xi, \cS, \alpha , C_i^t$)}}
%  \label{algo:replace}
%  \begin{algorithmic}[1]
% \State  $\rho = I^t - \xi$ \*//Residual
%  \State $maxproj = -\infty$ \*// best projection from existing set
%  \State $ind = \phi$ \* /index of the best projection from existing set
%  \For{each index $j$ in $\cS$:}
%  %\State If{$|\cS| = k$}
%  \State  $n\rho = \rho + \alpha_j*S_j$ \*// new residual on including $S_j$
%  \State  $n\varrho = C_i^t . n\rho$  \*//projection of $C_i^t$ , incoming gradient
%  \State  $\varrho = S_j . n\rho$  \*//projection of $S_j$, existing gradient
%   \If{$n\varrho > \varrho$ and $n\varrho>maxproj$}
%  \State maxproj $\longleftarrow$  $\varrho$
%  \State $ind = j$
%  \EndIf
%  \EndFor
%  \If{$ind \neq \phi$}
% %  \State $S_{ind} \longleftarrow C_i^t$  \*//Replace $S_{ind}$ with $C_i^t$ which has higher projection than the best in set S: $S_{ind}$
%  \State $S_{ind} \longleftarrow C_i^t$  \*//Replace the best existing projection in $S$ with the new projection
%   \State Update $\alpha$ ; Update $\xi$
%  \EndIf \\
%  return $\cS, \alpha, \xi$
%  \end{algorithmic}
% \end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\subsection{Phase 2: Data valuation using selected checkpoints}

The final approximation is demonstrated in Equation \ref{eq:finalapp} where $\mathcal{S}$ contains the gradient similarity values w.r.t selected checkpoints. We can also rewrite Equation \ref{eq:finalapp} as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:finalapp2}
     I_t \approx \eta \sum_{j\in \mathcal{R}^t} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}_j|} \sum_{i\in \mathcal{B}_j} \alpha_j [\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j^i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z') \nonumber \\ + 0.5*(\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j^i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z'))^2]
\end{aligned}$$

where $\mathcal{B}_j$ is the mini-batch associated with the selected checkpoint j $\in \mathcal{R}$ and $z_j^i \in \mathcal{B}_j$ is the i-th datapoint in $\mathcal{B}_j$. We associate the similarity in gradients (Equation ) to score/data value of the training points $\in \mathcal{B}$ since that denotes the impact of the training point on the test set performance. We define the score in Equation .

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:score}
Value(z_j^i \in \mathcal{B}_j) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}_j|} \sum_{z' \in \mathcal{Z}'} (\alpha_j [\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j^i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z') \nonumber \\ + 0.5*(\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j^i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z'))^2])
\end{aligned}$$

In order to select a subset of a given cardinality $f$, we can follow some techniques given below:

1.  If $f < |\mathcal{B}|$, where $|\mathcal{B}|$ = $\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}} |\mathcal{B}_j|$, we can take the top $f$ elements from $\mathcal{B}$ in order of their scores obtained from Equation .

2.  Otherwise, for $f > |B|$ we find the nearest neighbouring point $n \in \mathcal{B}$ (using some form of feature similarity) for each element $e$ in $\mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{B}$. Following that, we can compute *Value(e)* using Equation based on the $\mathcal{B}_j$ to which $n$ belongs. After having obtained the scores for all the training datapoints, we can take top $f$ elements and form the subset.

The intuition behind using nearest neighbour technique is that if the point $e$ (whose score is unknown) is distant from the nearest neighbour $n$ (among the set of known scored points) by a factor $\epsilon$, the change in cumulative loss $I_t$ for including $e$ in place of $n$ will also be bounded. Hence, we can compute the score of the element $e$ by using the information acquired from selection of checkpoints. Theorem illustrates the same.

Following point 2 above, in order to incorporate diversity into the subset, we propose an Algorithm , *SimSet* which computes the similarity values between a pair of instances based on their influences/contributions on the test set performance and retains the non-redundant and important training points. From Equation , we can form the contribution score for each training datapoint $z_j^i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
    contrib(z_j^i) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{B}_j|} (\alpha_j [\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j^i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z') \nonumber \\ + 0.5*(\nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1},z_j^i)^T \nabla l(\theta_{t}^{j-1}, z'))^2])
\end{aligned}$$

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:optim}
    \min_{p_{ij}} & \sum_{i,j=1}^{|Z'|} p_{ij} \mathcal{D}_{ij} \\
    &s.t. \sum_{j=1}^{|Z'|} p_{i,j} = 1 , \nonumber \\
    &p_{i,j} \in [0,1] , \nonumber \\
    &\sum_{j=1}^{|Z'|}\| [p_{1,j} \dots p_{|Z'|,j} ] \|_2 \leq k
    \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$

**Theorem 1**.  * Let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the entire training set and $\mathcal{B}$ be the minibatches associated with selected checkpoints $\in \mathcal{R}$. For each $e \in \mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{B}$, if dist($e$,$n$) $\le \epsilon$, where $n$ is the nearest neighbour in terms of penultimate layer(PL) feature similarity ($PL_{\theta}(e)-PL_{\theta}(n) \le \epsilon$), the difference between cumulative change in loss on retaining $n (I_t)$ and substituting $e$ in place of $n (I_t')$ can be equated as $$I_t' - I_t \le [f(e)_{g1}-f(n)_{g2}]$$ where $f(n) = PL_{\theta}(n)^T FL_{\theta}$ with $FL_{\theta}$ being the final layer parameter, $f(e) = (PL_{\theta}(n)\pm \epsilon)^T FL_{\theta}$, and $g_1,g_2$ being the ground truth labels for $e$ and $n$ respectively.*


author: Jesus Lago
title: ***Optidef***
  A Latex library for optimization problems
  Version - 3.0

# Introduction and features

This Latex library provides a standard set of environments for writing optimization problems. The most important features are:

1.  It references optimization problem using three different policies: no equation is referenced, the problem is referenced with a single label, each equation has an individual reference. For more details refer to Sections and .

2.  It defines two problem size formats: a long format and a short format. For more details refer to Sections and .

3.  It allows four different outputs for the location of the constraints. For more details refer to Sections and .

4.  It allows the definition of a limitless number of constraints. For more details refer to Section .

5.  Four different type of problems: *minimize*, *maximize*, *arg min* and *arg max*. For more details refer to Sections and .

6.  The optimization problem can be broken in several pages without compromising the alignment or the structure of the problem. For more details refer to Section .

7.  The objective function can be broken in several lines without compromising the alignment or the structure of the problem. For more details refer to Section .

# Using the package

The package can be imported by directly adding

    \usepackage{optidef}

to the document preamble. When importing the packages three options can be used, `short`, `nocomma`, and either `c1`, `c2`, or `c3`:

    \usepackage[short,c1|c2|c3,nocomma]{optidef}

The first option changes the default long format of the optimization problems to a shorter format; for a better explanation (including examples) of the `short` option check Section .

The options `c1`, `c2`, and `c3` change the default format of the constraints; the default format is format 0 (as defined in Section ); `c1`, `c2`, and `c3` respectively change the default constraint arrangement to format 1, 2, and 3. For a better explanation of the four formats including examples, we refer to Section .

For the `nocomma` option check Section . For a detailed description of how to use the package keep reading the next section.

# Environment Syntax Definition

Considering that `Const.i` stands for constraint $i$, `LHS.i` stands for the left-hand-side of constraint $i$, and `RHS.i` for the right-hand-side counterpart, the basic structure to define a general optimization problem with $N$ constraints is:

    \begin{mini#}|sizeFormat|[constraintFormat]<break>
    {optimizationVariable}
    {objectiveFunction\label{objective}}
    {\label{optimizationProblem}}
    {optimizationResult}

    \addConstraint{LHS.1}{RHS.1\label{Const1}}{extraConst1}
    \addConstraint{LHS.2}{RHS.2\label{Const2}}{extraConst2}
    .
    .
    \addConstraint{LHS.N}{RHS.N\label{ConstN}}{extraConstN}
    \end{mini#}

## Definition of Problem parameters

1.  `mini#`: defines the type of environment and reference used. There are four environments: `mini`, `maxi`, `argmini`, and `argmaxi`. There are three types of referencing: `mini`, `mini*` and `mini!`. Consult Section for more details.

2.  (Optional) `sizeFormat`: optional parameter to define the size format of the problem. The possible values are:

    -   l: for the long format as defined in Section .

    -   s: for the short format as defined in Section .

3.  (Optional) `constraintFormat`: optional parameter to change the format of the constraints. The parameter `constraintFormat` can take the following values:

    -   0: for the Standard definition in Section .

    -   1: for Alternative 1 in Section .

    -   2: for Alternative 2 in Section

    -   3: for Alternative 3 in Section

4.  (Optional) `break`: optional parameter to allow the optimization problem to break across multiple pages. For details on this feature, check Section .

5.  `optimizationVariable`: variable to be optimizated in the problem, e.g. $w \in \Re^N$.

6.  `objectiveFunction\label{objective}`: function to be minimized/maximized as a function of the optimization variable, e.g. $\|w\|_2$. If required, the objective function label should also be included withing this term

7.  `\label{optimizationProblem}`: it defines the main and general reference for the optimization problem. It is used for the `mini` and `mini!` enviroments. In the `mini*` environment should be left blank, i.e. {}, **not to be ommited**.

8.  `optimizationResult`: a term expressing the result of the optimization problem, e.g. $J(w^*)~=$. If not needed leave it blank, **not to be ommited**.

The last two defined problem parameters, `\label{optimizationProblem}` and `optimizationResult`, could be made optional. However, in order to improve the problem readibility, line breaking between the 7 parametes was implemented; unfortunately, linea breaking and optional parameters are not compatible and these two parameters had to be made mandatory.

## Adding Constraints

After the definition of the problem parameters, the environment accepts the definition of an infinite number of constraints. For this definitions the following command is used:
`\addConstraint{LHS.k}{RHS.k\label{Const.k}}{extraConst.k}`
The command accepts three different parameters

1.  `LHS.k`: the left-hand side of the the constraint $k$, e.g. $3w^\top w$.

2.  (Optional) `RHS.k\label{Const.k}`: the right-hand side of the constraint k if the equations should be aligned in the equality or inequality signs, e.g. $\leq \|w\|_\infty$. If required, the constraint label should also be included in this term.

3.  (Optional) `extraConst.k`: optional parameter to add extra alignment point for additional constraint information. An example would be the constraint names. Look Example or the Section .

### Constraints referencing

Notice that the label for the constraints is always included in the right hand side expression and it only makes sense for the case of using the `mini!` enviroment. The label of the objective function can also be included in a similar way.

# Environment Types

There are four basic environments depending on the type of referencing that should be used.

1.  The **mini** environment for defining problems with a single reference label:

2.  The **mini\*** environment if the problem does not have to be referenced:

3.  The **mini!** environment if each equation should be referenced:

4.  The **minie** environment: same functionality as the **mini!** environment and it replaces **mini!** when using the `optidef` library with some languages in the babel package. For further details we refer to Section .

Additionally, there are four basic definitions of optimization problems:

1.  The **mini** environment:

2.  The **maxi** environment:

3.  The **argmini** environment:

4.  The **argmaxi** environment:

# Long and Short Output Formats

The library permits the definition of two different problem size: a long format and a short format.

## Long Format

Selected by `sizeFormat`=l. It makes use of *subject to* and *minimize/maximize*

## Short Format

Selected by `sizeFormat`=s. It uses instead the shorter *s.t.* and *min/max*

By the default the long format is used. To change the default to the short format the package must be imported with the `short` option:

    \usepackage[short]{optidef}

# Output Formats for the Constraints

There are four basic output formats for the location of the constraints. They are controlled by the environment parameter `constraintFormat`.

## Alternative 0

In this format option, the constraints are located to the right of *subject to* and aligned with the objective function. It also has a second alignment point at the $=,~\leq,~\geq$ signs:

It is the default format if no format option is provided. Alternatively, it can also be set by selecting `constraintFormat`=0.

## Alternative 1

Selected by `constraintFormat`=1. It locates the constraints below *subject to* and keeps them aligned at the inequality/equality signs:

## Alternative 2

Selected by `constraintFormat`=2. It aligns all the constraints with the objective function.

## Alternative 3

Selected by `constraintFormat`=3. It aligns all the constraints below *subject to*:

        \usepackage[c1|c2|c3]{optidef}

## Extra alignment alternative

By default, the constraints have 2 aligned elements. However, a third alignment point can be used to set some constraint features. A clear example could be the constraints names:

or the index of the constraints:

This extra alignment point can be added using a third input parameter on the `\addConstraint` parameter. An example using the last constraint of the previous example would be:

    \addConstraint{l(w_k)}{=5u,\quad}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}

## Default format

The default format is alternative 0. To change the default format across the whole document, the package can be imported using one of the three options: `c1`, `c2`, `c3`, i.e.:

# Breaking the optimization problem across multiple pages

In several cases, people encounter the problem of having an optimization problem that is too long to fit in a single page. In those cases, optidef can automatically break the problem across multiple pages by simply using the optional argument `<b>`. For example:

    \begin{mini*}
    {w,u}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)+ H(100w-x*w/500)}{}{}
    \breakObjective{-g(w^3-x^2*200+10000*w^5)}
    \addConstraint{g(w_k)+h(w_k)}{=0,}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}
    \addConstraint{l(w_k)}{=5u,\quad}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}
    \end{mini*}

For the `mini`, `maxi`, `argmini`, and `argmaxi` environments, when the option `<b>` is provided, the environment does not automatically set the numbering nor the label of the environment. To create the number/label, the command `\labelOP{label}` should be used. In particular, in the equation/constraint of the optimization problem where the label/number should be located, simply add `\labelOP{label}`. For example, the following code:

    \begin{mini}
    {w,u}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)+ H(100w-x*w/500)}{}{}
    \breakObjective{-g(w^3-x^2*200+10000*w^5)}
    \addConstraint{g(w_k)+h(w_k)}{=0,}{k=0,\ldots,N-1 \labelOP{eq:label}}
    \addConstraint{l(w_k)}{=5u,\quad}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}
    \end{mini}

would display this:

In addition to automatic breaking equations, manual breaks at selected locations can also be done using the `\displaybreak` command. Just add `\displaybreak` between the two constraints that need to be broken, e.g.:

    \begin{mini}
    {w,u}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)+ H(100w-x*w/500)}{}{}
    \breakObjective{-g(w^3-x^2*200+10000*w^5)}
    \addConstraint{g(w_k)+h(w_k)}{=0,}{k=0,\ldots,N-1 \labelOP{eq:label}}
    \displaybreak
    \addConstraint{l(w_k)}{=5u,\quad}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}
    \end{mini}

would display:

# Breaking the objective across several lines

In several cases, people encounter the problem of having an optimization problem which objective function is too long to be set in a single line. In such cases, a line breaking that respects the rest of the problem syntax would be desirable. To account for that, the command `\breakObjective` can be used. The idea is that, if the objective function shall be split in $n$ different functions, e.g. $f_1,\ldots,f_n$, the default objective parameter would include just $f_1$ and then, we would include $n-1$ statements `\breakObjective`($f_k$), $\forall k=2,\ldots,n$ right before defining the `\addConstraint` commands.

Let's illustrate this with an example. We could consider the example from before:

If now the cost function were too long, i.e: $$f(w)+ R(w+6x)+ H(100w-x*w/500)-g(w^3-x^2*200+10000*w^5)$$ We could split it as:

by simpling using the following command:

    \begin{mini*}
    {w,u}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)+ H(100w-x*w/500)}{}{}
    \breakObjective{-g(w^3-x^2*200+10000*w^5)}
    \addConstraint{g(w_k)+h(w_k)}{=0,}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}
    \addConstraint{l(w_k)}{=5u,\quad}{k=0,\ldots,N-1}
    \end{mini*}

It is important to notice the specific location of the `\breakObjective` command. In order to work properly, it has to be defined right before `\addConstraint` and right after the definition of the environment parameters; i.e. in any case the command should be used right after defining the first part of the objective function and not finishing the definition of the mandatory environment parameters.

# Default comma at the end of the constraint

By default, the algorithms adds a comma at the end of any constraint that is not the last one. This feature was implemented due to correctness of mathematical notation. However, this behavior can be removed by adding the option `nocomma` when importing the package:

    \usepackage[nocomma]{optidef}

# Long Optimization Variables

The standard appearance for long optimization variables is as follows:

A possible way to reduce the large variable spacing is to stack them with the command:

    \substack{x_0,u_0,x_1,\hdots,\\u_{N-1},x_N}

# Compatibility issues with other packages

Issues with three different packages have been reported: cleveref, babel, and mathabx.

## Cleveref

When using the cleveref package in couple with the optidef package two measures have to taken for the packages to work properly:

1.  As also indicated in the cleveref documentation, the optidef package has to be loaded before the cleveref package.

2.  To avoid crashes, the `\label` commands in the optidef environments have to be replaced by the protected counterparts `\protect\label`. This is required because of the standard Latex issue of moving arguments and fragile commands[^1].

A code example taking into account both measures is the following:

      \documentclass{article}
      \usepackage{optidef}
      \usepackage{cleveref}

      \begin{document}

      \begin{mini!}
        {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x) \protect\label{eq:ObjectiveExample1}}
        {\label{eq:Example1}}{}
        \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0 \protect\label{eq:C1Example3}}
        \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6 \protect\label{eq:C2Example1}}
        \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p \protect\label{eq:C3Example1}}
      \end{mini!}

      Example labels: \cref{eq:Example1} and \cref{eq:ObjectiveExample1}.

      \end{document}

As an alternative to the second step, i.e. protecting the `\label` command, the command can be robustify in the document preamble and then `\protect` is not longer needed. To robustify the `\label` command, the following has to be added to the preamble:

    \usepackage{etoolbox}
    \robustify{\label}

## Babel

When importing the package babel with some specific languages, e.g. French, the `mini!` environment clashes because of the exclamation mark.

This issue has been resolved starting from Optidef 2.7, where a working alternative to the `mini!` environment is included: the `minie` enviroment. Both environemnts have the same functionality, but when using the babel package it is recommended to use the `minie` environment to avoid issues.

## Mathabx

When using the mathabx package in couple with the optidef package, the optidef package must be loaded first in order to avoid malfunction of the mathabx package. In addition, the amsmath package should also be loaded before both of them. The preamble should look like:

    \usepackage{amsmath}
    \usepackage{mathabx}
    \usepackage{optidef}

# Examples

## Example 1 - mini environment

The code:

    \begin{mini}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}{}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 2 - mini\* environment

On the other hand:

    \begin{mini*}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {}{}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6,}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini*}

it is almost the same but removing the reference:

## Example 3 - mini! environment

Finally, the multireferencing environment outputs:

    \begin{mini!}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x) \label{eq:ObjectiveExample1}}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}{}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0 \label{eq:C1Example3}}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6 \label{eq:C2Example1}}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p \label{eq:C3Example1}}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0. \label{eq:C4Example1}}
    \end{mini!}

## Example 4 - Problem Result

Adding the problem result:

    \begin{mini}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}
    {J(w^*)=}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 5 - Short Format

Adding the short format parameter:

    \begin{mini}|s|
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}
    {}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 6 - Alternative 1 for Constraints

If including a 1 as optional parameter, the first constraint will appear aligned to the left right below *subject to*.

    \begin{mini}[1]
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}
    {}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 7 - Alternative 2 for Constraints

If including a 2 as optional parameter, the constraint will appear to the right of *subject to* but a single alignment point.

    \begin{mini}[2]
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}
    {}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 8 - Alternative 3 for Constraints

If including a 3 as optional parameter, the first constraint will appear aligned to the left right below *subject to* and with a single alignment point.

    \begin{mini}[3]
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}
    {}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 9 - Breaking a long objective

    \begin{mini*}
    {w,u}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)+ H(100w-x*w/500)}{}{}
    \breakObjective{-g(w^3-x^2*200+10000*w^5)}
    \addConstraint{g(w_k)+h(w_k)}{=0,}
    \addConstraint{l(w_k)}{=5u,\quad}
    \end{mini*}

outputs:

## Example 10 - Extra Alignment in the Constraints

Adding optional alignment to add constraint names:

    \begin{mini*}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {}{}
    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0,}{ \quad  \text{(Dynamic constraint)}}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6,}{ \quad  \text{(Boundary constraint)}}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p,}{ \quad  \text{(Random constraint)}}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0,}{ \quad  \text{(Path constraint).}}
    \end{mini*}

## Example 11 - The *argmini* Environment

Similar to the `mini`, `mini*` and `mini!` environments, the environments `argmini`, `argmini*` and `argmini!` are very similar environments that use the same syntax but the output is slightly different:

    \begin{argmini}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}

    {\label{eq:Example1}}{w^*=}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{argmini}

outputs:

## Example 12 - The *maxi* and *argmaxi* Environments

Exactly the same syntax and definition as the previous environments, but now for defining maximization environments. The following code serves for illustration:

    \begin{maxi}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {g(w)}{=0}

    {\label{eq:Example1}}{}

    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{maxi}

outputs:

## Example 13 - Breaking optimization problem

    \begin{mini}
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {\label{eq:Example1}}{}
    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0.}
    \end{mini}

outputs:

## Example 14 - All Possible Parameters

    \begin{mini!}|s|[1]
    {w}{f(w)+ R(w+6x)}
    {}{w^*=}
    \addConstraint{g(w)}{=0,}{ \quad  \text{(Dynamic constraint)}}
    \addConstraint{n(w)}{= 6,}{ \quad  \text{(Boundary constraint)}}
    \addConstraint{L(w)+r(x)}{=Kw+p,}{ \quad  \text{(Random constraint)}}
    \addConstraint{h(x)}{=0,}{ \quad  \text{(Path constraint).}}
    \end{mini!}

# Reporting bugs and feature requests

To report any bug or request some feature please use the issue section in the github repository: <https://github.com/jeslago/optidef/issues>.

[^1]: goo.gl/wmKbNU


abstract: *What strange new worlds will our next-generation telescopes find?
  Kevin Heng is an assistant professor of astrophysics at the University of Bern, Switzerland (Twitter: @KevinHeng1). He is a core science team member of the CHEOPS mission and is involved in the PLATO mission. Joshua Winn is associate professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was a member of the Kepler science team, and is currently deputy science director of the TESS mission.
  Edited by Katie Burke. `www.americanscientist.org `*
address: University of Bern, Physics Institute, Center for Space and Habitability, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, United States of America
author: Kevin Heng; Joshua Winn
title: The Next Great Exoplanet Hunt

One of the most stunning scientific advances of our generation has been the discovery of planets around distant stars. Fewer than three decades ago, astronomers could only speculate on the probability for a star to host a system of exoplanets. Now we know the Universe is teeming with exoplanets, many of which have properties quite unlike the planets of our Solar System. This has given birth to the new field of exoplanetary science, one of the most active areas of astronomy, pursued by many research groups around the world.

Although there are many ways of detecting exoplanets, the most successful in recent years has been the transit method, in which the exoplanet reveals itself by transiting (passing directly in front of) its host star, causing a miniature eclipse. These eclipses are detected by telescopes that are capable of precisely tracking the brightnesses of many stars at the same time. Since its launch in 2009, NASA's Kepler space telescope used this technique to resounding effect, finding more than 1,000 confirmed transiting exoplanets. The success of the Kepler mission has inspired the next generation of exoplanet transit-hunting machines: a fleet of new space telescopes and complementary ground-based telescopes. They will expand our inventory of strange new worlds and further our quest to find Earth-like exoplanets and search them for signs of life.

The long-term strategy of exoplanet hunting is easy to state: find exoplanets, characterize their atmospheres and, ultimately, search for chemical signatures of life (biomarkers). These efforts strive to answer questions such as: Which molecules are the most abundant? What is the typical cloud coverage, temperature and wind speed? Is there a solid surface beneath all the gas? The answers to these questions help establish whether an exoplanet is potentially habitable. And unless we can detect radio broadcasts from an intelligent civilization or build starships to visit the exoplanet itself, these atmospheric characterizations seem the most promising—and to some, the only—way of discerning whether a given exoplanet is actually inhabited. Molecular oxygen, or ozone, for example, would be circumstantial, but not definitive, evidence for life, because there are plausible ways of producing it abiotically using the known laws of physics and chemistry. Subsurface life may exist on an exoplanet, but we probably have no chance of detecting it with astronomical observations.

This logical sequence of exploration is largely mirrored in the series of space missions that NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have planned, approved, and constructed—or will construct. Exoplanet detection is poised to make the transition from cottage industry to big science, while atmospheric characterization is inexorably finding its feet.

**Bright, Twinkling Stars**

Early efforts to detect transiting exoplanets in the early 2000s used ground-based telescopes, which face daunting obstacles. One obstacle is the annoying tendency of the Sun to rise every morning. This foils the attempt to monitor stars as continuously as possible. Transits that occur during daytime are missed. Another obstacle is the Earth's atmosphere, a turbulent and constantly varying screen that causes apparent fluctuations in starlight much stronger than the transit signals we seek to detect. Even on a seemingly clear night, the atmosphere alters the passage of starlight in a manner that depends on both wavelength and brightness, through the phenomena of extinction and scintillation. Extinction is why the setting sun is red and dim; scintillation is why stars twinkle. To correct for these effects, astronomers point their telescopes at groups of stars with similar colors and brightness, trusting that the atmosphere will affect them all equally—whereas a transiting exoplanet would cause only one of them to temporarily dim. Using these reference stars, exoplanet transits can be flagged and confirmed.

From our vantage point on Earth, bright stars are rarer than faint ones, simply because of geometry—casting our net farther into space would create a celestial sphere that encompasses more stars, which tend to be fainter on average because of the greater distances involved. The brightest stars are distributed uniformly across the entire sky and are therefore widely separated in angle. Finding reference stars to confirm an exoplanet transit becomes harder for bright stars: the only comparable reference stars may be located so far away on the sky that one can no longer assume they are affected equally by the atmosphere. This helps to explain the otherwise paradoxical fact that the "best and brightest" few thousand stars in the sky are relatively unexplored for transiting exoplanets.

Astronomers realized that these difficulties may be circumvented by launching telescopes into space. Although he was not specifically thinking about exoplanet transits, the late Princeton astronomer Lyman Spitzer lobbied tirelessly in the 1960s and 1970s for what would later become known as the Hubble Space Telescope. Placed above Earth's atmosphere eliminates some of the obstacles to precise measurements. For exoplanet hunters, there is no need to find bright reference stars and the precision is limited only by photon-counting noise (sometimes termed "shot noise")—the inevitable fluctuations in the signal caused by the discrete and random nature of photon emission.

Even with a space telescope, detecting transiting exoplanets is a fight against long odds. The vast majority of exoplanets do not transit. The exoplanet's orbit must be aligned nearly edge-on, as we see it from Earth, in order for transits to occur. The probability for transits is equal to the stellar diameter divided by the orbital diameter, which is only 0.1% for an Earth-like orbit around a Sun-like star. For this reason, a meaningful transit survey must include tens of thousands of stars, or more. Because faint stars far outnumber bright ones in any given region of the sky, a practical strategy is to monitor a rich field of relatively faint stars. This is precisely what the Kepler space telescope did, staring at about 150,000 stars in a small, 115-square-degree patch of sky in the constellations of Cygnus and Lyra. Unfortunately, most of the Kepler discoveries involve stars that are too faint for the atmospheric characterization of their exoplanets.

Transiting exoplanets offer the potential for atmospheric characterization. During a transit, a small portion of the starlight is filtered through the exoplanet's atmosphere. By comparing the spectrum of starlight during a transit to the starlight just before or after the transit, we can identify absorption features due to atoms and molecules in the exoplanet's atmosphere. Another approach is to measure the light emitted from the exoplanet, by detecting the drop in brightness when the exoplanet is hidden behind the star, an event known as an "occultation".

The practical value of transits and occultations depends critically on the brightness of the star. The higher the rate of photons (particles of light) that a star delivers to Earth, the faster we can accumulate information about its exoplanets. This is because many astronomical observations are limited by photon-counting noise. The greater the number of photons we collect, the smaller the effects of shot noise and the higher the signal-to-noise ratio. This in turn allows us to search for smaller exoplanets, which produce smaller transit signals. To put the smallness in perspective, an Earth-sized exoplanet transiting a Sun-like star produces a total dimming of only 84 parts per million and its atmospheric signal would be smaller by at least an order of magnitude. To measure the spectrum of an exoplanetary atmosphere, one needs to divide up the starlight according to wavelength. In essence, a small signal must be split into even smaller ones, an endeavour only feasible if the signal-to-noise ratio is very high at the outset. And this is only possible for bright stars. The Kepler stars are typically more than a million times fainter than the brightest naked-eye stars such as Sirius, Vega and Alpha Centauri.

These challenges are easier to overcome when the exoplanet is large, is located close to its star and has a "light" (low mean molecular mass) or nonmetallic atmosphere. This is why hot Jupiters, hydrogen-dominated gas giants orbiting their stars closer than Mercury is to our Sun, were the first to have their atmospheres characterized by astronomers.

To appreciate how demanding the observations can be, consider the transiting super-Earth known as GJ 1214b, the most favorable system for atmospheric characterization among all the known transiting exoplanets smaller than Neptune, because it is located relatively close to us and resides in a 1.6-day orbit. Even in this most favorable case, characterizing GJ 1214b's atmosphere required observing with the Hubble Space Telescope for a record-breaking 60 orbits, which translates roughly into a cost of about \$12 million. (Observing time on the Hubble Space Telescope is quantified by the number of 90-minute orbits of the spacecraft around the Earth and is awarded competitively. Most successful proposals request only a few orbits.) Unfortunately, the transmission spectrum recorded did not achieve a definitive conclusion: Does GJ 1214b have a "heavy" (metallic) atmosphere? Or does it have a hydrogen-dominated atmosphere enshrouded by clouds? To scale up this endeavor to thousands of exoplanetary atmospheres, it would make sense to target the brightest possible stars.

Combining the Kepler discoveries with those made by other groups, astronomers now know of about 2,000 confirmed exoplanets and another 4,000 exoplanet candidates around other stars. These impressive-sounding statistics obscure the fact that the number of exoplanets for which we can meaningfully characterize the atmosphere is quite small—about a dozen. And they are mainly gas-giant exoplanets; most of them are significantly larger than Earth and none of them are likely to be habitable.

For astronomers, the next step is crystal clear: detect transiting exoplanets as small as the Earth around the brightest and nearest stars, which would give us the best chance of characterizing their atmospheres and searching for biosignature gases—ones that can be uniquely attributed to life and are present in enough abundance that our remote sensing techniques may robustly detect them.

**Exoplanet-Hunting Machines**

After the failure of two of its reaction wheels (which are responsible for maintaining the telescope's orientation in space), the Kepler mission is unable to keep staring at the same field of stars. The telescope and camera are still functioning but they are unable to hold a steady pointing except if they are aimed close to the ecliptic, the plane of Earth's orbit. The mission has recently been re-christened "K2" and is now surveying various star fields in the ecliptic. This will turn up more transiting exoplanets around bright stars, but leaves most of the sky to be explored by its successors.

In 2012, ESA selected the Characterising Exoplanet Satellite (CHEOPS) as their first small-class space mission (at a cost of about 100 million euros). Led by the Swiss astrophysicist Willy Benz, CHEOPS builds on the Swiss heritage of exoplanet hunting. Widely recognised for having found the first exoplanet orbiting a Sun-like star, Geneva Observatory continues to lead the world at building the most precise spectrographs for the Doppler detection of exoplanets: measuring the to-and-fro wobble of stars as they are gravitationally pulled around by their exoplanets. Doppler data allow the masses of the exoplanets to be measured.

Shortly afterwards, NASA approved the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), building on the heritage of the Kepler mission, with a cost of about \$200 million and a launch scheduled for 2017, the same year as CHEOPS. Barely a year later, the exoplanet-hunting zeitgeist was further recognized by ESA, which approved the Planetary Transits and Oscillations of Stars (PLATO) mission—yet another transit detection machine—to be launched in 2024 at a price tag of half a billion euros. Each of these machines aims to take the next logical steps after Kepler and discover transiting exoplanets around bright stars.

Why do we need so many different exoplanet transit space missions? Leaving geopolitical considerations aside, they are all different beasts with different hunting strategies. TESS will pursue the strategy of scanning the entire sky in a systematic manner, concentrating on each sector of the sky for about 27 days. It will use four optical cameras, each with an unusually wide (24 by 24 degrees) field of view, to monitor about 200,000 stars. Since the rule of thumb for confirming a detection is to record three transits—so as to establish periodicity—this largely restricts TESS to detecting exoplanets on short, 9-day orbits, except for two continuous viewing zones where it will monitor the sky for up to an entire year. Centered on the ecliptic poles, these viewing zones are chosen to be compatible with the ease of using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to follow up on TESS targets. TESS is a discovery mission in the truest sense, in that it will search for previously unknown exoplanet transits. The TESS team expects to find about a thousand transiting exoplanets, including hundreds that are smaller than Neptune and a few dozen Earth-sized ones.

By contrast, CHEOPS uses a narrow-field camera (0.3 by 0.3 degrees) to examine one star at a time. It was originally conceived to search for transits in systems where Doppler measurements by the Geneva exoplanet group have previously detected the presence of exoplanets, but for which it is unknown whether the exoplanet's orbit is oriented correctly for transits. Exoplanets with both transit and radial velocity measurements are golden targets for atmospheric characterization, since their masses, radii and surface gravities would be known, which allow for a more decisive interpretation of their atmospheric properties. CHEOPS can also perform a useful role by staring at systems already known to transit (from TESS or other surveys), confirming signals and giving better estimates of exoplanet sizes and orbital periods.

The most important characteristic of a telescope is the size of its mirror and therefore its light-gathering power. Mirror size is always a compromise between scientific goals, engineering considerations and cost. Bigger mirrors collect more photons, enabling more precise brightness measurements and the detection of smaller transiting exoplanets—but bigger mirrors usually have smaller fields of view and are more complex and costly. TESS uses four cameras with mirrors that are only 10 centimeters in diameter, offering relatively low cost and wide fields of view. CHEOPS will deploy a 30-centimeter mirror, allowing nine times as much light to be collected every second. All other things being equal, this means a single transit observed by CHEOPS bears as much information as nine repeated observations by TESS. The practical challenge for CHEOPS is to examine a large enough sample size of stars with exoplanets, since only a fraction of them will—by chance—transit their stars.

Conversely, a major challenge for TESS is to coordinate the ground-based telescope observations that are needed to detect the Doppler signals and measure their masses. It turns out that the ease or difficulty of performing these measurements is related to the type of star involved. Astronomers categorize stars based on their surface temperatures, which are revealed by their spectra. They are labeled in the following order of decreasing temperature: O, B, A, F, G, K, M (which inspired the mnemonic, "Oh, be a fine girl/guy, kiss me."). O stars are early-type stars and live very short lives—only millions of years—compared to their later, Sun-like brethren (G stars), which have lifetimes of billions of years. Early-type stars also tend to be large, implying that it would be harder to detect the transits of small exoplanets around them. M stars are late-type stars and are the longest-lived, potentially lasting up to the age of the Universe.

Stars of spectral type F and earlier (meaning A, B and O stars) rotate more rapidly, which broaden the spectral lines of atoms or molecules in their atmospheres. Since making radial velocity measurements depends on being able to precisely pin down the positions of these spectral lines associated with the star, broader lines are an impediment. Consequently, it becomes more challenging to measure the mass of the exoplanet. It is for this reason that TESS has chosen to focus on stars from mid-F and mid-M. Small, late-type stars are our best chances, in the short term, of detecting and characterizing an Earth-like exoplanet. This is partly because the transit of a given exoplanet produces a bigger signal when it is around a smaller star: The loss of light during a transit is equal to the square of the size ratio of the exoplanet and star. Another advantage of small stars is that they are much less luminous, implying that exoplanets with the same surface temperature as Earth would reside in closer-in, shorter-period orbits—making them much easier to detect. Radial velocity measurements are also easier for bright stars, as one is again performing spectroscopy. The faintness of the Kepler stars explains why only a handful of them have radial velocity measurements.

Doppler measurements are important for another reason—by pinning down the mass of the transiting object, one can definitively identify it as an exoplanet. The vastness of the Universe and the creativity of Nature produce a variety of astrophysical "false positives": astrophysical signals that mimic transits but are caused by stars and brown dwarfs. Brown dwarfs are objects intermediate in mass between exoplanets and stars—between 13 and 80 Jovian masses—but often have radii similar to that of Jupiter. A transiting brown dwarf is therefore impossible to distinguish from a transiting gas-giant exoplanet, unless its mass can be measured. Exoplanetary transits can also be mimicked by grazing stellar binaries—a pair of stars residing in an orbit that is not quite edge-on to the observer so that each star barely obscures the other during conjunction. This near-obscuration produces a tiny eclipse that can appear similar to an exoplanet transit. Alternatively, the light from a pair of eclipsing stars can be blended together with the constant light from a star that is nearby on the sky, causing the signal of the stellar eclipses to be diluted down to exoplanet-sized proportions. To complicate matters, there are also "false alarms", spurious signals caused by our imperfect understanding of the light detectors or by stellar activity. Stars are hardly perfect light bulbs—sometimes, they flicker and erupt, a fact that was unthinkable up till the time of Galileo. The ability to thoroughly understand the false-positive occurrence rate in one's survey or mission may ultimately be the difference between failure and success.

Ground-based transit surveys are also advancing rapidly. They are less capable than spacecraft, but also much cheaper and play a complementary role. Building on the Wide Angle Search for Planets (WASP) survey, the UK-led Next-Generation Transit Survey (NGTS) is an array of fully robotic telescopes sitting on a desert plateau in Chile and searching for transits around K and M stars. The MEarth project, led by David Charbonneau of Harvard University, discovered the super Earth GJ 1214b and continues to search for small exoplanets around M stars. The SPECULOOS project, led by the Belgian astronomer Michaël Gillon, is also targeting late M stars—the dimmest, smallest and longest-lived of its category. In addition to dealing with the Earth's atmosphere, ground-based astronomers have to worry about the complications associated with M stars, including enhanced flaring and stellar activity, as well as star spots—imperfections on their surfaces associated with magnetic fields—that sometimes rival the size of any orbiting exoplanet. These challenges are offset by the fact that M stars are abundant—they make up about three-quarters of the stars in our solar neighborhood.

This fleet of space missions, complemented by intensive efforts from the ground, will lay the foundation for building up a target list that may finally allow atmospheric characterization of exoplanets to be statistical in nature.

**Awaiting the Behemoths**

This grand mobilization of exoplanet detection machines awaits the launch of the much-anticipated James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in 2018. More than a decade in the making, the JWST is the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, but with "eyes" optimized for infrared observations rather than visible and ultraviolet light. Capped at a cost of \$8 billion, it is humankind's most expensive telescope. It is a behemoth with a 6.5-meter mirror, armed with a suite of cutting-edge instruments capable of taking spectra from the faintest and most distant objects in the sky. Recognizing the importance of the JWST for exoplanet science, NASA recently tweaked the design of one of its instruments to enable better measurements of exoplanet transits around bright stars.

The catch is that the JWST is a general observatory built for multiple branches of astronomy, including cosmology, black hole physics, galaxy formation and evolution, protoplanetary disks, exoplanets, the interstellar medium, the first stars, and so on. The mission lifetime of the JWST (5.5 to 10 years) is limited by the supply of hydrazine fuel needed to maintain the spacecraft's orbit. Coupled with the constraint that its observing time has to be shared with the other, non-exoplanet astronomers, this means that the JWST will be restricted to characterizing a small number of exoplanetary atmospheres. While there is currently no shortage of intriguing exoplanetary atmospheres for the JWST to characterize, the hope is that we will have found several Earth-like exoplanets orbiting bright stars by the time of its launch. In an ideal world, we would want an Earth analogue orbiting a M star located sufficiently close to Earth that there is a chance of detecting the presence of biosignature gases in its atmosphere (assuming life exists on that exoplanet). Statistically speaking, such targets are likely to exist, but none have yet been identified.

The PLATO mission of ESA, scheduled for launch in 2024, will be getting a much later start than TESS and CHEOPS at finding targets for JWST. However, PLATO is the most ambitious mission of the three, aiming to build a catalogue of true Earth analogs—Earth-like exoplanets orbiting within the habitable zone of Sun-like stars. Inspired by the WASP ground-based survey, it will feature an array of 34 telescopes with 12-centimeter mirrors. Its observing strategy borrows from that of Kepler, CHEOPS and TESS: a sweep of the entire sky with the possibility of "step-and-stare" phases lasting two to five months. Each sector of the sky is observed for two to three years, sufficiently long to uncover exoplanets on year-long orbits. The PLATO team will target and monitor a million stars and expects to detect over 1,000 Earths and super Earths on various orbits, complete with follow-up Doppler measurements using next-generation spectrographs from the ground. PLATO will truly carry the categorization of the bulk properties of exoplanets to the next level.

What will follow the transit discovery missions? During the competitive selection process won by CHEOPS and TESS on either side of the Atlantic, there were two proposed missions for telescopes specializing entirely in atmospheric characterization, named EChO and FINESSE. These fell by the wayside, but will likely be revived with an even stronger motivation after all of the best and brightest targets have been discovered. Such a mission would need to record spectra from the visible to the mid-infrared range of wavelengths. Information from the visible wavelengths would encode a combination of how reflective the atmosphere is, tell us whether it is cloudy and identify the inert gas responsible for most of its mass. It would also identify atoms such as sodium or potassium, which have previously been detected in several hot Jovian atmospheres. Identifying the presence of molecules such as water, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and methane would require an infrared spectrum. By building up a census of the chemical compositions of exoplanetary atmospheres in our cosmic neighborhood, we may begin to address questions like whether "water worlds"—ocean-dominated exoplanets—are common in the Universe.

Some astronomers are also investigating cheaper, ground-based alternatives to building space telescopes. The Dutch astronomer Ignas Snellen has suggested the idea of constructing "light buckets"—arrays of small- to medium-sized telescopes for recording exoplanet transits. Most astronomical telescopes are designed to capture sharp images of distant objects. But for the purpose of measuring a transit, image sharpness is largely irrelevant—all one needs is to collect enough light to register a robust signal of the rise and ebb of starlight. In principle, the same amount of light may be collected by a large array of hundreds of telescopes working together to mimic the light-collecting area of a 40-meter (or larger) telescope—at a fraction of the cost.

Other astronomers are chasing the holy grail of taking a photograph of a second Earth, a technique known in exoplanetary science as "direct imaging". The key challenge is to block out the starlight, which is a million to a billion times more brilliant than the light of the exoplanet (depending on whether one is operating in the visible or infrared range of wavelengths). There are two schools of thought on how to achieve this obscuration: either to install an internal coronagraph as part of the design of the space telescope; or to fly a separate star shade that positions itself far away from the telescope. Flying a star shade shifts the engineering complexities away from the telescope, implying that a run-of-the-mill space telescope may be used—but at the price of having two separate spacecraft. Several variations of these ideas have been considered for decades, with the most recent study of the star shade being led by Sara Seager at MIT.

More audaciously, perhaps the process of mapping the chemical and physical diversity of the exoplanetary atmospheres in our cosmic backyard can be accelerated via the private sector. Space flight is inexorably being commercialized. There is even a private enterprise (Mars One) aiming to send humans to colonize Mars. If the same resources were directed towards building a dedicated observatory for characterizing exoplanetary atmospheres, perhaps we could complete our census within a few decades. One idea would be to hold the X Prize equivalent of a competition for constructing such an observatory, fueled by private investors. Mapping out the habitable real estate of our cosmic neighborhood seems at least as exciting as visiting the soils of our Solar System.

Amidst this rush of activity, we often have to explain ourselves to our fellow physicists, who perceive exoplanetary science as being "not fundamental" and qualifying only as "applied physics." But purity does not always equate with importance, and what is not pure is not always trivial. Although exoplanet hunters are certainly not expecting to stumble upon new insights into grand unified theories, the scientific stakes are no less high: to remove humanity from the center of the physical, chemical and biological universe, thus completing the Copernican-Galilean revolution, which established that the Earth revolves around the Sun. To quote the American exoplanet hunter Sara Seager: "Hundreds or a thousand years from now, people embarking on interstellar travel will look back and remember us as the society that first found the Earth-like worlds." The hunt is on.