abstract: Most existing GANs architectures that generate images use transposed convolution or resize-convolution as their upsampling algorithm from lower to higher resolution feature maps in the generator. We argue that this kind of fixed operation is problematic for GANs to model objects that have very different visual appearances. We propose a novel adaptive convolution method that learns the upsampling algorithm based on the local context at each location to address this problem. We modify a baseline GANs architecture by replacing normal convolutions with adaptive convolutions in the generator. Experiments on CIFAR-10 dataset show that our modified models improve the baseline model by a large margin. Furthermore, our models achieve state-of-the-art performance on CIFAR-10 and STL-10 datasets in the unsupervised setting.
author: Nhat M. Nguyen, Nilanjan Ray
Department of Computing Science
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3
Canada
`{nmnguyen,email@example.com`
bibliography: iclr2018_conference.bib
title: Generative Adversarial Networks using Adaptive Convolution

# Introduction

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are an unsupervised learning method that is able to generate realistic looking images from noise. GANs employs a minimax game where a generator network learns to generate synthesized data from random noise and in conjunction, a discriminator network learns to distinguish between real and generated data. Theoretically, the training processes of the two networks intertwine and iterate until both networks reach a Nash equilibrium where real and synthesized data are indistinguishable.

However, in practice, GANs are notoriously hard to train. For the learning of the generator to happen effectively, hyper-parameters, as well as the architectures of the generator and discriminator, must be chosen carefully. Nevertheless, on datasets with visually similar images, such as bedroom scenes and faces , GANs have produced good results . This success, however, does not translate to datasets that have diverse visual categories. GANs models trained on ImageNet were only able to learn basic image statistics and some shapes, but they did not learn any object . Recent works address this problem by incorporating additional high-level information to guide the generator, such as training the discriminator in a semi-supervised manner , adding a second training objective to direct the generator toward similar samples from the training set or using artificial class labels by clustering in the representation space .

We take a different approach to tackle this problem. We hypothesize that the rigidity of the normal convolution operator is partially responsible for the difficulty of GANs to learn on diverse visual datasets. Most GANs generators upsample low resolution feature maps toward higher resolution using fixed convolutions (note that a transposed convolution is equivalent to a convolution) or resize-convolution . Such operations are unintuitive, because, pixel locations have different local contexts and belong to diverse object categories. Consequently, different pixel locations should have different upsampling schemes. This shortcoming of normal convolution is especially problematic in the early upsampling layers where higher level information usually associates with the object shapes and the context of images.

We propose the use of a novel adaptive convolution architecture, called Adaptive Convolution Block, that replaces normal convolutions to address the aforementioned shortcoming of GANs generators. Instead of learning a fixed convolution for the upsampling of all pixels from the lower to the higher resolution feature map, an AdaConvBlock learns to generate the convolution weights and biases of the upsampling operation adaptively based on the local feature map at each pixel location. AdaConvBlock helps the generator to learn to generate upsampling algorithms that take into account the local context. We believe that this kind of adaptive convolution is more intuitive and more akin to the process when a human draws something: the same thought process is used in the whole drawing but the style of each stroke should vary and depend on the local context around each pixel position.

We conduct experiments to compare our adaptive convolution method to normal convolution in the unsupervised setting. We progressively replace all convolutions of a GANs generator with AdaConvBlocks from the lowest resolution to the highest resolution. Experiments on CIFAR-10 dataset show that the modified adaptive convolution models have superior qualitative and quantitative performance over the baseline architecture and just replacing convolution of the upsampling from the lowest resolution feature map with adaptive convolution can have significant impacts on the baseline model. Furthermore, our best models achieve state-of-the-art unsupervised performance on both CIFAR-10 and STL-10 datasets. Our code and models will be released.

# Background

## Generative Adversarial Networks

Generative Adversarial Networks is a framework where a *generator* G that tries to mimic real data of a target distribution is pitted against a *discriminator* D that tries to distinguish the generated samples from the target distribution. G is trained to increase the chance that generated samples are classified as real data while D is trained to minimize it. The training processes of D and G alternate and can be formulated as a minimax game: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{G} \max_{D} V(D,G) = \mathbb{E}_{x \sim q_{data}(x)}[\log{D(x)}] + \mathbb{E}_{z \sim p_{x}(z)}[\log{(1-D(G(z))}]
\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{data}(x)$ is the real data distribution on $\mathbb{R}^n$, $p_{x}(z)$ is a commonly used distribution such as $\mathcal{N}(0,I)$, $z \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is a random noise variable drawn from $p_{x}(z)$, $G:\mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is a generator function that maps the random noise variable to the real data space, $D:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow [0,1]$ is a function that outputs the probability of a data point in $\mathbb{R}^n$ belonging to the target real data distribution. The training process of GANs takes turns to update the discriminator for a number of times before updating the generator once. Ideally, the discriminator should be trained to convergence before updating the generator. However, this is computationally infeasible and causes the $D$ to overfit on datasets with finite data.

In the framework of GANs, $G$ and $D$ can be any differentiable functions. For image generation, they are usually formulated as convolutional neural networks. The generator $G$ usually consist of a fully connected layer to project the random variable to a small 3D volume followed by upsampling layers using convolutions that progressively refine the volume to have the desired spatial dimensions while the discriminator $D$ is usually constructed as the reverse of the generator, using strided convolutions to downsample the feature maps.

## Difficulties in training GANs

The difficulties of training GANs is well known. For example, the balance between the strength of the generator and that of the discriminator is essential for successful training. If $D$ is too strong, $\log{(1-D(G(z))}$ will be close to zero and there would be almost no gradient from where $G$ could learn to generate data. On the other hand, if $D$ is too weak, it will not be able to provide a good feedback for $G$ to improve. Another prominent issue is mode collapse where $G$ learns to map the majority of the random distribution $p_{x}(z)$ to a few regions in the real data space, resulting in near duplicate images. Overall, the training of GANs is unstable and very sensitive to hyper-parameters.

Several works have been done to address the difficulties of training GANs. WGAN pioneered the conditioning of $D$ to be a Lipschitz function by using weight clipping. proposed an improved version, called WGAN-GP, that enforces this conditioning by penalizing the gradient of $D$ on the set of straight lines between real and generated samples. Spectral Normalization GANs is one of the most recent works in this category. Spectral Normalization controls the Lipschitz constant of the discriminator by dividing the weight matrix of each layer by its own spectral norm, which is equal to its largest singular value. The largest singular value of a matrix can be efficiently computed by an approximation algorithm . Spectral Normalization has been shown to make GANs robust to hyper-parameters choices without incurring any significant overhead. For these reasons, we use spectral normalization to train our architectures.

# Adaptive Convolution Block for Generative Adversarial Networks

Although a lot of progress has been made in improving the training procedure, datasets with visually diverse images still pose a challenge for GANs. GANs fail to produce good-looking samples even on low dimension datasets like CIFAR-10 and STL-10. In this paper, we propose a novel Adaptive Convolution Block (AdaConvBlock) as a replacement for normal convolutions in GANs generator to tackle this issue. The AdaConvBlock can be thought of as a way to increase the capacity of the generator, making it easier to learn the sophisticated multimodal distributions underlying the visually diverse datasets. The details of our network architectures that use AdaConvBlocks are shown in section . Note that the kind of AdaConvBlock we describe in this paper only replace a normal convolution. In the case of a transposed convolution, an Adaptive Transposed Convolution Block can be implemented by simply rearranging the input volume (in the same way when converting a transposed convolution to a normal convolution) first, then apply an AdaConvBlock to the rearranged volume. Due to implementation difficulties of this rearrangement operation in Tensorflow , the deep learning framework we use, we only experiment with Adaptive Convolution Blocks in this paper.

## Adaptive Convolution Block

Consider a convolution operation with filter size $K_{filter} \times K_{filter}$ and number of output channels $C_{out}$ on an feature map that has $C_{in}$ input channels. At every location, a convolution requires a weight matrix $W$ of size $K_{filter} \times K_{filter} \times C_{in} \times C_{out}$ as the filters to be convolved with the local feature map that has spatial dimension of size $K_{filter} \times K_{filter}$ followed by adding a bias matrix $b$ of size $C_{out}$ to each channels of the previous convolution.

For a normal convolution, all spatial locations in the input feature map will have the same weight $W_{normal}$ and bias $b_{normal}$. The shared weight and bias matrices serve as the learned variables of a normal convolution.

For an adaptive convolution, however, all spatial locations do not share the same weight and bias variables. Rather, they share the variables that are used to generate the weight and bias for each pixel location based on the local information. For each pixel $(i, j)$, an adaptive convolution consists of two normal convolutions to regress the adaptive weight $W(i,j)$ and adaptive bias $b(i,j)$ at each location followed by the local convolution of $W(i,j)$ with the local feature map and the addition of $b(i,j)$ to the previous local convolution. In this case, the learnable variables of an adaptive convolution are the weights and bias matrices of the convolutions that are used to generate $W(i,j)$ and $b(i,j)$.

A naive AdaConvBlock learns four matrices $W_{w,w}$, $W_{w,b}$, $W_{b,w}$ and $W_{b,b}$ with the size of $K_{adaptive} \times K_{adaptive} \times C_{in} \times C_{adaptive}$, $C_{adaptive}$, $K_{adaptive} \times K_{adaptive} \times C_{out}$, $C_{out}$, in a serial order. $W_{w,w}$, $W_{w,b}$ are the weight and bias matrices of the convolution to regress the adaptive weight $W(i,j)$ for and $W_{b,w}$, $W_{b,b}$ are the weight and bias matrices of the convolution to regress the adaptive bias $b(i,j)$ for each pixel location. $K_{adaptive}$ is the filter size of the convolution (i.e. the size of the local window around the pixel location) in the input feature map to regress $W(i,j)$ and $b(i,j)$ from. $C_{adaptive} = K_{filter} \times K_{filter} \times C_{in} \times C_{out}$ is the number of output channels of the convolution to regress $W(i,j)$, which is equal to the size of the matrix $W_{normal}$ of a normal convolution. Note that $K_{adaptive}$ controls the amount of local information used in an AdaConvBlock and can be different from the regressed filter size $K_{filter}$. Denote $F_{in}$ as the input feature map, $F_{out}$ as the output feature map of a naive AdaConvBlock, the exact formulation of $F_{out}$ from $F_{in}$ is described as below: $$\begin{aligned}
W_{adaptive} &= ReLU(F_{in} \ast W_{w,w} + b_{w,b}) \label{equation:w_adaptive} \\
b_{adaptive} &= F_{in} \ast W_{b,w} + b_{b,b} \\
F_{out} &= F_{in} \ast_{local} \overline{W}_{adaptive} + b_{adaptive}
\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{adaptive}$, $b_{adaptive}$ are the 3D volumes consisting of all adaptive convolution weights $W(i,j)$ and biases $b(i,j)$. Note that $W_{adaptive}$ contains all the weights $W(i,j)$ that have been flattened into vectors. $\overline{W}_{adaptive}$ denotes $W_{adaptive}$ after the adaptive weight matrices are reshaped back into the appropriate shape for convolution. $ReLU$ denotes the ReLU activation function. $\ast_{local}$ denotes the local convolution operator.

One drawback of a naive AdaConvBlock, however, is the extremely expensive operation of computing adaptive convolution weights from the input volume (i.e. $F_{in} \ast W_{w,w}$). The amount of memory and computation used by this operation grow proportionally to $K_{adaptive} \times K_{adaptive} \times C_{in} \times C_{adaptive} = K_{filter}^2 \times K_{adaptive}^2 \times C_{in}^2 \times C_{out}$. We use depthwise separable convolution in place of normal convolution to reduce computation cost as well as memory usage of this operation. A depthwise separable convolution replaces a normal convolution with two convolutions: one convolution (called depthwise convolution) that acts separately on each channel followed immediately by a 1x1 convolution (called pointwise convolution) that mixes the output of the previous convolution into the number of output channels . The first depthwise convolution has memory and computation costs proportional to $K_{adaptive}^2 \times C_{in} \times C_{depthwise}$ while the second pointwise convolution has memory and computation costs proportional to $C_{depthwise} \times K_{filter}^2 \times C_{in}^2 \times C_{out}$ with the depth multiplier $C_{depthwise}$ being the number of output channels for each input channel of the depthwise convolution. For the AdaConvBlocks in our architectures, cost of the pointwise convolution dominates cost of the depthwise convolution. By choosing $C_{depthwise} = 1$, this separation of one big convolution into two smaller convolutions cuts the amount of memory and computation cost of our models by roughly $K_{adaptive}^2$ times. Equation  is rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
W_{adaptive} &= ReLU(F_{in} \ast W_{w,w,depthwise} \ast W_{w,w,pointwise} + b_{w,b})
\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{w,w,depthwise}$ and $W_{w,w,pointwise}$ are the weight matrices of the depthwise and pointwise convolution that have size of $K_{adaptive}^2 \times C_{in}$ and $K_{filter}^2 \times C_{in}^2 \times C_{out}$, respectively.

Figure  illustrates the full structure of an AdaConvBlock. Note that we do not use Batch Normalization in our AdaConvBlock.

## Design Choices of an AdaConvBlock

In this subsection, we discuss some design choices for the Adaptive Convolution Block.

First, both the adaptive convolution weights and biases do not have to be regressed necessarily from the input volume. Additional transformations can be applied to the input volume before regressing the weights and biases. We tried a few transformations and found them to cripple the performance of our network. For example, 3x3 dilated convolutions can be used to exponentially increase the receptive field to the regression of the weights and biases. The increase of receptive field can make object shapes more coherent. However, in practice, we found using multiple 3x3 dilated convolutions made training more unstable. The same effect can be achieved to by increasing $K_{adaptive}$ of the adaptive convolution without this downside. Another idea we tried was to add 1x1 convolutions before the regression to increase the nonlinearity of an AdaConvBlock. However, experiments showed that they were detrimental to the generator and hammered our model's performance.

Next, we considered the choice of activation functions and the lack of batch normalization in an AdaConvBlock. To regress both convolution weights and biases, we did not apply batch normalization as there were no reasons for the regressed weights and biases to follow any probability distribution. We applied a non-linearity after the convolution to regress the weights. Empirically, we found the ReLu activation made AdaConvBlock work better than other activation functions, including the identity activation (i.e. no activation). To regress the biases, we do not apply an activation function because doing so results in unwanted effects of limiting the output of an AdaConvBlock in a range.

Lastly, as described in section  , to reduce the memory and computation cost, we used depthwise separable convolutions with a depth multiplier equal to one in place of normal convolutions while regressing adaptive convolution weights. The use of depthwise separable convolutions also had another benefit in that it made the memory and computation cost almost insensitive to the parameter $K_{adaptive}$ and allowed us to increase the receptive field to the regression at almost no cost. The choice of depth multiplier came from experiments. Empirically, we found increasing the depth multiplier not only increased the memory and computation cost but also slowed down the training progress. And overall, it did not improve our model's performance.

# Related works

There have been several works that seek to improve GANs performance on datasets that have high visual variability. proposed a semi-supervised training procedure for GANs. Instead of learning to only distinguish real and fake samples, the discriminator also learns to classify which class the real data points belong to. Their method turns the discriminator into $K+1$-way classifier, with $K$ classes of the real data and one class for the fake sample. Empirical results show that this kind of formulation surprisingly improves the quality of generated images. Based on the findings in this work, trained a denoising auto-encoder on the feature of the discriminator penultimate layer. For each generated sample, the squared difference between the discriminator feature and the reconstructed feature by the denoising auto-encoder for the penultimate layer is minimized. This additional training objective has the effect of guiding the generated samples toward regions in the feature space that correspond to higher probability configurations. The procedure is referred to by the authors as *denoising feature matching*. employed a simple but successful artificial class augmentation method for training GANs by dividing the samples using k-means clustering on the representation learned by the last hidden layer. Each cluster is treated as one artificial class. The networks are trained as an AC-GAN using the artificial class labels. The generator uses both the random noise variable $z$ and the artificial class label to generate fake samples while the discriminator tries to not only classify whether a sample is real or fake but to also construct the probability distribution over the artificial class labels. The discriminator starts with one cluster for the unsupervised case. Training progresses until a cluster is split into two when it has more samples than a threshold. Labels of the old cluster are then replaced with those of the new ones on the whole dataset. After this step, training is resumed with the new clusters.

The aforementioned methods have been successful to varifying degrees. However, the common theme among all of them is that they all try to make use of additional high level information, whether directly from the training labels or indirectly from the discriminator, to augment new training objectives that can direct the generator toward better sample generation. Our approach is different as we try to better the generator output by improving the architecture. Our method is complementary to these existing methods and a combination has the potential to yield better results.

Our method is inspired by the work of that applies adaptive convolution in video frame interpolation. The authors trained an encoder-decoder network to extract features on two large image patches of the two video frames. The features are then fed into four subnetworks to estimate four 1D kernels that are then used for the interpolation. Although the base idea of using adaptive convolution is similar, there are differences between their work and ours that originates from differences in the problems. For the video interpolation task, they only have to regress a small number of outputs for each pixel location, while the size of our model, as well as outputs, grow cubically with the size of our base channels. This constraint makes the efficient use of memory more important in our work. Secondly, the filters of a video frame interpolation task are limited in the range $[0, 1]$ but that is not the case for our GANs convolution filters. Therefore, the design paradigms for the two architectures are different.

# Experiments

We perform experiments on CIFAR-10 and STL-10 datasets in a purely unsupervised setting. No labels or additional training objectives are used in the training process. Spectral Normalization is applied to the discriminator to stabilize training in all experiments. Zero padding is used for convolutions. All weights are initialized using a truncated normal distribution with mean zero and standard deviation of 0.02. Biases are initialized to zero. Following , we use Adam optimizer with $\alpha=0.0002$, $\beta_1=0.5$, $beta2=0.999$ and batch size of 64 in all experiments. The number of discriminator updates per generator update is also fixed to one. Aligning with previous works, we compute the mean and standard deviations of the *Inception score* over 10 groups of 5000 randomly generated images. These two metrics are reported every 5000 training iterations and finally, the model with the highest mean score is selected for each architecture.

## Baseline

Our baseline architecture is based on the Spectral Norm GAN architecture. We replace all transposed convolution in the generator network with resize-convolution as an upsampling algorithm. The generator consists of six layers. The first layer is a Gaussian noise generator $\mathcal{N}(0,I)$ followed immediately by a fully connected layer to project the noise vector into a 3D volume that has spatial shape of a square with side of $M_g$ that depends on the dataset and depth of "base channels" equal to 512. We reduce the base channels of the baseline generator from 512 to 128. The reason is that our architectures using AdaConvBlocks can only fit into GPU memory with 128 base channels. Table show the architecture of the baseline generator. Note that this baseline generator and the discriminator we use in this work are not balanced, which leads to a relatively low Inception score.

The discriminator network is kept unchanged from the work of . We use this discriminator for the baseline model as well as for all of our architectures.

| $z \in \mathbb{R}^{128} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)$ |
|:--:|
| dense $\rightarrow M_g \times M_g \times 128$ |
| neareast-neighbor 2x resize. 3x3, stride=1, 64 output channels conv. BatchNorm. ReLU |
| neareast-neighbor 2x resize. 3x3, stride=1, 32 output channels conv. BatchNorm. ReLU |
| neareast-neighbor 2x resize. 3x3, stride=1, 16 output channels conv. BatchNorm. ReLU |
| 3x3, stride=1, 3 output channels conv. Tanh |

Architecture of the baseline generator. $M_g = 4$ for CIFAR-10 and $M_g = 6$ for STL-10.

## Our Architectures

We progressively replace 3x3 convolutions from the third to the last layer of the baseline generator in Table  with AdaConvBlocks. Note that the 3x3 convolution in the last layer is not part of an upsampling step. However, in our experiments, we find that replacing this convolution also improves the performance of our model slightly. The AdaConvBlocks that replace normal convolutions must keep the filter size $K_{filter}$ and output channels $C_{out}$ intact, leaving the only one parameter left that can vary is the size of the local window to regress the adaptive weights and biases $K_{adaptive}$. For a generator with base channel of 512, our architectures that use AdaConvBlocks do not fit into our GPU memory. The memory and computation cost of an AdaConvBlock grows cubically with the number of input channels $C_{in}$ and $C_{in}$ of the AdaConvBlocks, which are determined by the base channels. Therefore, we have to reduce the number of base channels from 512 to 128 for our architecture. Consequently, we have to reduce the base channels of our baseline generator as well.

We name our architectures based on the number of AdaConvBlocks used to replace normal convolution in the baseline model. For example, AdaGAN-1 is the model that has the 3x3 convolution in the third layer replaced with an AdaConvBlock, AdaGAN-2 is the model that has both convolutions in the third and the fourth layers replaced with AdaConvBlocks and AdaGAN-3 is the model that has all convolutions replaced except for the last layer. Additionally, we name AdaGAN as the model that has all 3x3 convolutions replaced with AdaConvBlocks. Table  shows the architecture of AdaGAN model. For AdaGAN-1, AdaGAN-2 and AdaGAN-3, their architectures can be derived easily from table  and table .

The choice of $K_{adaptive}$ is an important factor for the performance of our architectures. Ideally, $K_{adaptive}$ should be chosen separately for each layer. However, for simplicity, we fix $K_{adaptive}$ for all AdaConvBlocks in an architecture. We append $K_{adaptive} \times K_{adaptive}$ to the name of every architecture. For example, AdaGAN-1-3x3 is an AdaGAN-1 architecture that has $K_{adaptive}$ set to three, AdaGAN-5x5 is an AdaGAN architecture that has $K_{adaptive}$ set to five.

| $z \in \mathbb{R}^{128} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)$ |
|:--:|
| dense $\rightarrow M_g \times M_g \times 128$ |
| neareast-neighbor 2x resize. $K_{filter}=3$, $C_{out}=64$ AdaConvBlock. BatchNorm. ReLU |
| neareast-neighbor 2x resize. $K_{filter}=3$, $C_{out}=32$ AdaConvBlock. BatchNorm. ReLU |
| neareast-neighbor 2x resize. $K_{filter}=3$, $C_{out}=16$ AdaConvBlock. BatchNorm. ReLU |
| $K_{filter}=3$, $C_{out}=3$ AdaConvBlock. Tanh |

Architecture of AdaGAN. $M_g = 4$ for CIFAR-10 and $M_g = 6$ for STL-10. $K_{adaptive}$ for each AdaConvBlock are not specified.

## CIFAR-10

To show the effectiveness of AdaConvBlocks, we compare the performance of the baseline generator with our architectures on the CIFAR-10 dataset. We use $K_{adaptive}=3$ for all AdaConvBlock in this experiment. We train all models for 200,000 iterations. Table  shows the Inception score of the baseline generator versus our architectures. Experimental results show that the Inception score increases with the number of AdaConvBlocks used in place of normal convolutions. Replacing the convolution in the first upsampling layer (layer three) with an AdaConvBlock has the highest impact, improving the mean Inception score from 6.55 to 7.30, a 0.75 points difference. The AdaConvBlock in this upsampling layer helps increase the generator capacity significantly, allowing the generator to counterbalance the discriminator strength and thus leads to much better training results. The benefits of AdaConvBlocks weaken gracefully in the subsequent layers and become negligible in the last layer. Our AdaGAN-3x3 architecture with 128 base channels beats Spectral Norm GAN , which use normal convolutions, by a large margin, even though the latter uses a generator with 512 base channels and has arguably better balance. Therefore, the increases in Inception scores of our models compared to the baseline model cannot be attributed to the effect of balancing between the generator and discriminator alone and the flexibility induced by AdaConvBlocks must have played a major role. This confirms our hypothesis that using normal convolution in the upsampling layers limits the performance of the generator and adaptive convolution can be used to alleviate this problem.

To test the effects of $K_{adaptive}$, we additionally train another AdaGAN-5x5 model ($K_{adaptive}=5$). This leads to a small increase in mean Inception score over the AdaGAN-3x3 model. Both of our AdaGAN models achieve state-of-the-art performance on CIFAR-10 dataset. Table , second column, shows the unsupervised Inception scores of our AdaGAN models compared to other methods on CIFAR-10. Figure and in appendix  show the samples generated by our AdaGAN models.

| Architecture |          Inception score |
|:-------------|-------------------------:|
| Baseline     |          $6.55 \pm 0.08$ |
| AdaGAN-1-3x3 |          $7.30 \pm 0.11$ |
| AdaGAN-2-3x3 |          $7.74 \pm 0.06$ |
| AdaGAN-3-3x3 |          $7.85 \pm 0.13$ |
| AdaGAN-3x3   | $\mathbf{7.96 \pm 0.08}$ |

Unsupervised Inception scores on CIFAR-10 of the baseline generator versus our architectures.

## STL-10

For STL-10 experiments, we train on the unlabeled set and downsample the images from $96 \times 96$ to $48 \times 48$, following . As STL-10 has bigger image size than CIFAR-10, a larger $K_{adaptive}$ maybe helpful. Thus, we train an AdaGAN-7x7 model on this dataset as well. Our architectures converge much slower on STL-10 therefore we train our models for 400000 iterations. The two AdaGAN-5x5 and AdaGAN-7x7 models achieve state-of-the-art performance while the AdaGAN-3x3 model is just behind the work of . Table , third column, shows the unsupervised Inception scores of our models against other methods. Figure , and in appendix  show the samples generated by our models.

| Method                  |                 CIFAR-10 |                   STL-10 |
|:------------------------|-------------------------:|-------------------------:|
| Real Data               |         $11.24 \pm 0.12$ |         $26.08 \pm 0.26$ |
| DFM                     |          $7.72 \pm 0.13$ |          $8.51 \pm 0.13$ |
| Spectral Norm GAN       |          $7.42 \pm 0.08$ |          $8.69 \pm 0.09$ |
| Splitting GAN ResNet-A  |          $7.90 \pm 0.09$ |          $9.50 \pm 0.13$ |
| AdaGAN-3x3              |          $7.96 \pm 0.08$ |          $9.19 \pm 0.08$ |
| AdaGAN-5x5              | $\mathbf{8.06 \pm 0.12}$ |          $9.67 \pm 0.10$ |
| AdaGAN-7x7              |                          | $\mathbf{9.89 \pm 0.20}$ |

Unsupervised Inception scores on CIFAR-10 and STL-10

# Discussion

We have demonstrated that using adaptive convolutions to replace normal convolutions in a GANs generator can improve the performance of a weak baseline model significantly on visually diverse datasets. Our AdaGAN models were able to beat other state-of-the-art methods without using any augmented training objectives. The samples generated by our models show that they seem to be able to learn the global context pretty well and be able to learn the rough shapes of the objects in most cases and the sample quality is quite reasonable on CIFAR-10 dataset. Furthermore, there are not much visible convolution artifacts in the generated images. The success of our models suggests that non-trivial performance improvement can be gained from modifying architectures for GANs.

The approach we take is different from other methods that try to inject high level information into the discriminator. These existing methods and AdaGAN can complement each other. More experiments need to be done, but we believe that our architectures can benefit from the augmented training objectives from existing methods.

Our method is not without a downside. Even though we used depthwise separable convolution to reduce the cost, the amount of memory and computation is still extremely high. More tricks could be applied to alleviate this issue. For example, in a similar manner to work, both the local convolutions and the convolution to regress the adaptive weights for the local convolutions in our AdaConvBlock can be approximated by separate 1-D convolutions. This can reduce the cost by more than 50%. Another idea is to exploit locality. We expect the adaptive convolution weights and biases of a pixel location to be quite similar to its neighbors and can be interpolated in a certain way. We will address this issue in our future work.

# Samples generated by our models on CIFAR-10 and STL-10 datasets


author: Yi Liu [^1] , D. R. Jiang , Zhi-Qiang Shen, M. Karouzos [^2]
title: A kinematic study of the compact jet in quasar B3 1633+382

# Introduction

Associated with a redshift of z = 1.814 , the radio source B3 1633+382 (4C 38.41) was identified as a quasar and has been frequently observed at different wavelengths across the electromagnetic spectrum during the past decades. A nearly flat spectrum has been derived from 1.5 to 90 GHz contemporaneous measurements . Strong variability at both long and short radio wavelengths has also been detected . This quasar has been classified as an optically violent variable (OVV)  because of its strong optical variability. Both infrared and X-ray fluxes have been obtained with the IRAS and the Einstein Observatory respectively . As one of the most powerful extragalactic objects detected by the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory , its $\gamma$-ray power is two orders of magnitude higher than the typical value at any longer wavelength . This source is also included in the Fermi-LAT 3-month bright AGN list .

Very Large Array (VLA) observations of B3 1633+382 have shown a triple structure with an overall size of $12^{''}$ along the north-south direction. This is a misaligned source, with its VLA jet at almost 90 degrees position angle to the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) jet . A jet in the western direction with a sharp bend to the south at about 50 mas was detected by with 1.7 GHz Very Long Baseline Interferometer (VLBI) observations. Superluminal proper motion $\mu=0.16\pm0.03$ $\rm
mas~yr^{-1}$ (4.4$\pm0.8$ c) was detected on the basis of three epochs of VLBI observations at 5 GHz . It has also been observed with the VLBA at dual-frequency . The VLBI space observatory programme (VSOP) mission, using the HALCA satellite along with a global array of earth-based telescopes, has detected a faint core with sub-milliarcsec resolution . (2001) presented results of their multi-frequency monitoring program with the VLBA during six epochs between 1994 and 1996. A prominent jet at a position angle (P.A.) $\sim-87^{\circ}$, extending out to 1.5 mas with three components, has been detected at 22 GHz. The authors found that the proper motions of components B1 and B3 are 0.20 and 0.14 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$ (5.5 c and 3.9 c), respectively. Component B2 was shown to be quasi-stationary at a distance of $\sim0.5$ mas from the core.

In our 22 GHz VLBA observation preformed on 2000 March 1 (see Fig. 1), there are four jet components (in this work, we name them components B1, B2, and B3 following ) loacted in a western direction with 0.51, 1.33 and 2.15 mas separation from the core respectively. Component B4 is the newest one at 0.15 mas from the core. This result is consistent with another VLBA observation at 43 GHz in 1999 . However, after combining their proper motion with (2001) and ours (see Fig. 2(a)), we find it hard to distinguish the evolutionary track of the two internal components owing to the lack of observations from 1997 to 2000. In order to study the kinematic in quasar B3 1633+382, more observation epochs are needed. Thus we additionally collected and analyzed seven more VLBA epochs at the same 22 GHz frequency from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) archive data (see Table 1). Combined with these seven archive observed data, one observation of our own, and six other observations obtained from literature, we have 14 epochs of VLBA observations at 22 GHz for this source.

We study the kinematics of the compact jet in quasar B3 1633+382. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 the data reduction is described. The motions of components are detailed in Sect. 3, followed by our conclusions in Sect. 4. We adopt the spectral index convention $f_{\nu}\propto\nu^{-\alpha}$ and a cosmology with $H_{0}=70 {~km ~s^ {-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_{M}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$.

# Data reduction

Our 22 GHz VLBA observation of B3 1633+382 was performed on 2000 March 1. The signals were recorded in four intermediate frequency (IF) bands for a total bandwidth of 32 MHz with 2 bit sampling. The recorded data were first correlated at the VLBA correlator in Socorro (New Mexico) and then calibrated and fringe-fitted using the NRAO astronomical image processing system (AIPS) software. Initial amplitude calibration was done using system temperature measurements and the NRAO-supplied gain curves. The data were corrected for 2 bit sampling errors and atmospheric opacity. The imaging and self-calibration were carried out in the DIFMAP package (Shepherd, Pearson,. Of the seven epochs from the NRAO archived data, four were observed at 8, 15, 22 and 43 GHz, one at both 22 and 43 GHz, and two at 22 GHz only. All archive data were processed with the steps described above. However, we encountered a problem with the correction for atmospheric opacity for the data of 1998 January 2. We used the simultaneously observed 15 GHz data instead to replace the 22 GHz data in our study, which might introduce a less than 0.1 mas position shift.

After obtaining images in DIFMAP, we performed the model fitting to the self-calibrated visibility data using circular Gaussian components. For all model fits we assumed the brightest component to be stationary and used it as a reference point. The other components were measured relative to it. Uniform weighting of the $u\upsilon$ data was used to ensure the highest resolution. Figure 1 shows the naturally weighted image of our observation with the model-fitted circular Gaussian components. During the model-fitting procedure of components, we found that inner component B3 (see Fig. 1) was consistently detected in all seven archive data and our own observation (see Table 1). At the same time, component B3 had about half as much flux density as core when it was ejected from the core. Because this was similar to a situation of the innermost component B4, it was continuously detected in at last two observations. Component B4 also displays a flux density comparable to that of the bright core when it is ejected from the core. That means we could consider those components B3 and B4 as real and rule out the possibility that they are just noise on the fringes of the strong core component. Table 1 is a summary of the model-fitting parameters. We used data from the VSOP observations by for our component identification. A maximum uncertainty of 15 % in the flux density was calculated from the uncertainties of the amplitude calibration and from the formal errors of the model fitting. presented a method to estimate the position error as $\Delta r=\frac{\sigma\cdot \Theta}{2
S_{\rm P}}$, where $\sigma$ is the residual noise of the image after the subtraction of the model, $\Theta$ is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the component, and $S_{\rm P}$ is the peak flux density. However, this formula might underestimate the actual position error if the peak flux density $\rm S_{P}$ is very high or the width $\Theta$ of component is small. Therefore we derived our position error from the formula $\Delta r=\frac{\sigma\cdot
\Theta}{S_{\rm P}}$. Figure 2 presents the core separation (the radial distance from the core) as a function of time for the individual model components (open symbols denote the data at 22 GHz from published literature, solid symbols show our model-fitting results in Table 1; stars display components from the VSOP survey by , which is used for our component identification), where circle, triangle, and square symbols denote the B1, B2, and B3 components, respectively.

# Kinematic motion of the jet

After combining all 14 epochs VLBA observations, we found there are two different possibilities to classify the components. The first one is related to a simple linear proper motion (see Fig. 2(b)). The linear proper motion of component B1 is found to be 0.21 $\rm
mas~yr^{-1}$, consistent with (2001). It is also roughly consistent with the result of (2004), who found a smaller proper motion of 0.15 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$ (4.1 c) from a simple linear fit. As for component B3, we found a linear proper motion of 0.32 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$, which is about 50% higher than that of component B1. Then we found that is always one blob $\sim0.5$ mas away from the core at different epochs. If those blobs were responding to the same component, it would mean that component B2 is quasi-stationary at distances of $\sim0.5$ mas away from the core, at least during the observation interval. However, we note that there is an abrupt transition from the year of 1996 September to 1997 June for both components B2 and B3. Component B2 experiences a sudden rapid fallback to the core at an apparent velocity of 0.39 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$ between these six months, while B2 is modeled to be in a quasi-stationary motion. Meanwhile, component B3 undergoes a fast acceleration with 0.78 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$ during the same time interval. This proper motion is much higher than that fitted from all observed data points of component B3. However, we note that because of the rarity of observations, the apparent acceleration when component B3 passes through or gets ahead of component B2, could also be a result of the observations' accuracy. More observations are needed in the future.

Although a linear fit can explain the motion of components, there is another possibility, depending on the different classification of the components (see Fig. 2(c)). In this case, component B2 seems to remain almost stationary at a core separation of $\sim0.5$ mas during the period 1994-1997. Subsequently component B2 accelerates to 0.20 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$ (5.5 c), a velocity comparable to that of component B1. This kind of accelerated motion has sometime been interpreted as a change of the angle between the jet direction and the line of sight . Meanwhile, component B3 moves with a similar apparent velocity to component B1 before reaching a core separation of $\sim$ 0.5 mas. When component B3 is $\sim$ 0.5 mas away from the core, its speed is significantly low. Thus, it is likely that the two inner jet components (B2 and B3) show a similar proper motion mode; both appear stationary at a core-separation of $\sim$ 0.5 mas, but when they leave the region of $\sim$ 0.5 mas from the core, they both display velocities on the order of 0.2 $\rm mas~yr^{-1}$ (5.5 c). Then the linear motion is not enough to explain both the core separation evolution and the overall path of the components. Therefore we adopt a simple helical model presented by (1995) to fit the evolution track of the components.

In the helical model, the jet can be described by four physical parameters, the jet's kinematic energy $E_{kin}$, the opening half-angle $\psi$ of helix (hereafter called opening angle), the angular momentum $L_{z}$, and the momentum along the jet axis $P_{z}$. Keeping three of these four physical parameters constant, four possible cases were studied. We found only one case (where $E_{kin}$, $L_{z}$, and $\psi$ are conserved) that was physically plausible for our kinematic study of B3 1633+382. To fully determine the curved trajectory with the helical model, 10 free parameters are required (for an illustration see Fig. 1. in . These are: three parameters corresponding to the orientation of the coordinates (the viewing angle between the jet axis and the observer's line of sight $\theta$; the phase angle of the helix $\phi_{0}$; the position angle of the jet axis in the sky plane $\chi$), two parameters describing the initial point of the jet ejection (the ejecting time $t_{ej}$ and the distance from the jet axis $r_{0}$), two parameters accounting for the offset of the observed VLBI-core from the ejection of the helix in right ascension ($\bigtriangleup\alpha$) and declination ($\bigtriangleup\delta$), and three parameters of conservation (the initial value for the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ of a component, the angular velocity $\omega_{0}$, and the opening angle $\psi$). The best parameters derived from this simple helical fit are listed in Table 2.

There are several constraints derived by using the same methods as (1995): the Lorentz factor ($\gamma\gtrsim ~10$), the opening angle ($\psi\lesssim~5^{\circ}$), the initial radius ($\rm r_{0}\lesssim~0.1~mas$), the time of appearance for component B3 ($t_{ej}\thickapprox~1995.2$), and the offset ($\rm
\sqrt{\bigtriangleup\alpha^{2}+
\bigtriangleup\delta^{2}}\lesssim~0.15~mas$). We plot the result of model fits to the observed trajectory for each component in the left panels of Fig. 3. Points with error-bars are observed data, whereas the solid lines are from model calculation.

The apparent velocity $\beta_{app}$ is related to the proper motion $\mu$ by $$\beta_{app}=\frac{\mu~d_{L}}{c(1+z)}$$ , where $d_{L}$ is the luminosity distance, c is the speed of light, and z is the redshift. Proper motion calculated from two neighboring data points are assigned to be measured at the middle of these two observations. With parameters $\gamma$ and $\theta$ derived from the helical model fitting for each jet component, we can calculate the predicted apparent velocity $\beta_{app}^{'}$ using $$\beta_{app}^{'}=\frac{\beta\sin\theta}{1-\beta\cos\theta},$$ where $\beta=\sqrt{1-\gamma^{-2}}$ is the velocity of the bulk motion. $\beta_{app}^{'}$ can be compared to the observed $\beta_{app}$, in order to evaluate the correctness of this fit. In the right panels of Fig. 3 we show a comparison of the apparent velocity $\beta_{app}^{'}$, calculated with the helical model, and the apparent velocity $\beta_{app}$ estimated from observations. Points with error-bars and solid lines are corresponding to the observed data and helical model calculation, respectively.

The model parameters of the helical fitting (e.g., $\gamma$, $\omega$, $\phi$) listed in Table 2 are consistent for the three components. Moreover, the single dish radio flux monitoring of this source at 22 GHz, reported by , lasting nearly twenty years from 1981 to 2000, shows three prominent peaks at about 1986.7, 1991.4 and 1995.3 in its light curve . They can be considered as the ejection time $t_{ej}$ for each corresponding component, assuming that each new component appearance is accompanied by an outburst in the total intensity. The ejection times derived by the helical model for these three components are 1986.6, 1990.1, and 1994.1. If component B1 moves along a linear path, the $t_{ej}$ derived from proper motion extrapolation would be around 1989.7, three years later than the flaring time 1986.7. Compared with the extrapolated ejection times from a linear fit, it seems that the ejection times derived from the helical model are more consistent.

After combining the 14 epoch observations of this source, we find the kinematical motions of B3 1633+382 can be reasonably explained with both a simple linear and helical mode. In the linear kinematical motion, the component B2 moves at significantly slower apparent velocity than the other two components in this compact jet. These low-pattern velocity or even stationary features have sometimes been explained as standing recollimation shocks in an initially over-pressurized outflow, which have been reproduced in numerical simulations of AGN jets (e.g., ). Alternatively, it is possible that the quasi-stationary motion of the component is due to an extremely small viewing angle of the specific geometry . We roughly estimate a Doppler factor of approximately several tens by using both the average flux density and the average size of the core. Taking the apparent velocities into account, this implies that the jet is aligned at $\sim1^{\circ}$ to our line of sight, and the Lorentz factor corresponding to the pattern velocity is $\rm \Gamma\sim18$. Although it is an approximate estimation, the direction of the jet from our line of sight and the Lorentz factor fitted from linear model are consistent with the parameters from the helical model calculation. As for the helical fitting, on the other hand, it has been applied for fitting both the projected trajectory and the apparent velocity of components in the compact jet of quasar B3 1633+382. The model-calculated projected trajectories also well fit the significantly low apparent velocity for components B2 and B3 around a core-separation of $\sim$ 0.5 mas. Helical motions combined with indications of a time-dependent ejection angle can be explained in the context of a binary core. Binary black hole (BBH) models have been employed to explain similar component motions in other sources (e.g., 1803+784; , 3C 345; ). The component B3 1633+382 has been shown to exhibit periodicities in the radio and in the optical lightcurves, while also being variable in the $\gamma$-rays . Quasi-periodic variability across the spectrum is a further argument in favor of a BBH in the nucleus of this object (; e.g., OJ 287; ; , 3C 454.3; ). Helicity and precession of the jet can be explained in terms of Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities (e.g., , ), precession of the accretion disk (e.g., ), or magnetic torques . Although the stationary proper motion of components in B3 1633+382 can also be explained with both linear and helical model in this study, the long-term VLBA study has indicated that the standing components may be in temporarily quiescent states (). Future observations will provide new kinematical constraints.

# Conclusions

The quasar B3 1633+382 shows two different kinds of proper motion for its components. We note that it could be explained as two kinds of kinematical models when we use different classifications for the components. In the first case, if component B1 and B3 move outwards with a linear speed, then component B2 stays at a quasi-stationary state $\sim$ 0.5 mas from the core for the whole observation interval. Component B1 has a proper motion of 0.21 mas $\rm
yr^{-1}$, which is roughly similar to previous observations. In the meantime, component B3 also experienes a linear expansion with an apparent velocity of 0.32 mas $\rm yr^{-1}$. Although this model can explain the motion of the components, there is another possibility. In the second case, component B2 was accelerated after remaining almost stationary at a core-separation of about 0.5 mas for several years, while component B3 decelerates to a significantly low velocity at the same core separation of about 0.5 mas. Then we applied a helical model under the assumption of three conservative quantities (the jet's kinematic energy, angular momentum, and the momentum along the jet axis; 1995) to interpret the kinematics of the components. The solutions for each component can be used to explain the projected trajectories and the apparent velocity with time as well as to demonstrate in particular the low apparent velocity of the two components B2 and B3. Based on the predictions from the helical model, the components may have the same mode of motion. Future observations are needed to provide new kinematical constraints for the motion of these three components in this source.

```latex
\begin{table*}
 \caption{Gaussian models of VLBI observation.}
\label{table1}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllllll}
\hline\hline

Epoch &   Frequency &Component &Flux & R & $\theta$ & Major \\
       &  (GHz)  &      &(Jy) &(mas)&(deg)&(mas)

\\\hline
  1994.17 & 22.2 & Core & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.12 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.10\\%&  0.977 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.05 &  -87 &  0.48\\%&   0.013 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.02 &  -92 &  0.37\\%&   0.026 \\
  1996.07 & 22.2 & Core & 0.74 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.0             &  ... &  0.03\\%&   9.772 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.28 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.32 $\pm$ 0.05 &  -87 &  0.78\\%&   0.076 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.03 &  -98 &  0.30\\%&   0.011 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.46 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.17 $\pm$ 0.01 &  -86 &  0.21\\%&   0.009 \\
  1997.61 & 22.2 & Core & 1.20 $\pm$ 0.18 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.07\\%&   2.951 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.74 $\pm$ 0.03 &  -87 &  0.72\\%&   0.009 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.06 &  -81 &  0.67\\%&    0.003 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.03 &  -70 &  0.26\\%&    0.023 \\
  1998.01 & 15.4$^{a}$ & Core & 1.15 $\pm$ 0.17 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.11\\%&    2.344 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.49 $\pm$ 0.07 & 1.82 $\pm$ 0.01 &  -85 &  0.76\\%&    0.021 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.18 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.87 $\pm$ 0.02 &  -84 &  0.67\\%&    0.010 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.03 &  -77 &  0.28\\%&    0.045 \\
  1998.32 & 22.2 & Core & 1.38 $\pm$ 0.21 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.07\\%&    3.388 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.35 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.90 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -86 &  0.77\\%&    0.007 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.08 &  -78 &  0.74\\%&    0.003 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -82 &  0.33\\%&    0.022 \\
  1999.04 & 22.2 & Core & 1.20 $\pm$ 0.18 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.08\\%&    2.239 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.05 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -85 &  0.91\\%&    0.004 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.18 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -80 &  0.87\\%&    0.003 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -82 &  0.44\\%&    0.010 \\
  1999.57 & 22.2 & Core & 0.88 $\pm$ 0.13 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.04\\%&    6.607 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.29 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.13 $\pm$ 0.06 &  -84 &  0.99\\%&    0.004 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.26 $\pm$ 0.03 &  -81 &  0.63\\%&    0.006 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -79 &  0.50\\%&    0.007 \\
          &      & B4   & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 &  -42 &  0.01\\%&    97.724 \\
  2000.16 & 22.2 & Core & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.12 &  0.0            &  ... &  0.05\\%&    3.890 \\
          &      & B1   & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.15 $\pm$ 0.04 &  -85 &  1.09\\%&    0.003 \\
          &      & B2   & 0.15 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.33 $\pm$ 0.02 &  -79 &  0.68\\%&    0.004 \\
          &      & B3   & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.05 &  -79 &  0.46\\%&    0.004 \\
          &      & B4   & 0.33 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.21 $\pm$ 0.02 &  -52 &  0.12\\%&    0.275 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 0.1 true cm \noindent Note: a denote the correction for
atmospheric opacity for data on 1998 January  encountered\\
a problem. Thus we used the simultaneously observed 15 GHz data to
replace the 22 GHz data.
\end{table*}
```
```latex
\begin{table*}
\caption{Parameters of the helical model.} \label{table2}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllllll}
\hline\hline Component & $t_{ej}$& $\theta$&$\gamma_{0}$&
$\omega_{0}$&$r_{0}$&$\psi$&$\phi_{0}$&$\chi$&$\bigtriangleup\alpha$&$\bigtriangleup\delta$\\
& & $[^{\circ}]$&&$[\frac{^{\circ}}{yr}]$& [ly]
          &$[^{\circ}]$&$[^{\circ}]$&$[^{\circ}]$&[mas]&[mas]\\

\hline
B1& 1986.6$\pm$0.2 & 1.4$\pm$0.2 &  19.8$\pm$1.3 & 15.5$\pm$0.1 &   0.41$\pm$0.7 &  0.21$\pm$0.04 & 21$\pm$6 & 94$\pm$2 &   0.10 & 0.01 \\
B2& 1990.1$\pm$0.2 & 1.0$\pm$0.1 &  19.5$\pm$0.4 & 23.2$\pm$0.1 &   0.30$\pm$0.1 &  0.16$\pm$0.06 &  65$\pm$15& 87.0$\pm$2 &  -0.05 & -0.04 \\
B3& 1994.1$\pm$0.1 & 0.6$\pm$0.1 &  19.5$\pm$0.6 & 20.7$\pm$0.1 &   0.22$\pm$0.1 &  0.12$\pm$0.02 & -79$\pm$13& 73$\pm$5 &  -0.07 & 0.02 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 0.1 true cm \noindent Col. (1): observed components; Col.
(2): time of ejection; Col. (3): angle between the jet axis and the
line of sight; Col. (4): lorentz factor; Col. (5): angular velocity;
Col. (6): initial radius; Col. (7): opening angle; Col. (8): initial
phase angle; Col. (9): projective position angle of jet axis in sky
plane; Col. (10): offset of ejection in right ascension; Col. (11):
offset of ejection in declination.
\end{table*}
```

[^1]: e-mail: email@example.com

[^2]: Member of the International Max Planck Research School (IMPRS) for Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Universities of Bonn and Cologne


abstract: The possibility of excitations with fractional spin and statististics in $1+1$ dimensions is explored. The configuration space of a two-particle system is the half-line. This makes the Hamiltonian self-adjoint for a family of boundary conditions parametrized by one real number $\gamma$. The limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0, (\infty$) reproduces the propagator of non-relativistic particles whose wavefunctions are even (odd) under particle exchange. A relativistic ansatz is also proposed which reproduces the correct Polyakov spin factor for the spinning particle in $1+1$ dimensions. These checks support validity of the interpretation of $\gamma$ as a parameter related to the "spin" that interpolates continuously between bosons ($\gamma
  =0$) and fermions ($\gamma =\infty$). Our approach can thus be useful for obtaining the propagator for one-dimensional anyons.
author: J. Gamboa$^1$[^1] and J. Zanelli$^{1,2}$[^2]
$^1$ Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
Casilla 307, Santiago, Chile
$^2$ CECS, Casilla 16443, Santiago, Chile
title: Anyons in $1+1$ Dimensions

**1. Introduction**

Physics in $2+1$ dimensions has been extensively studied in the past few years in connection with topological field theory and with the hope of finding interesting applications in condensed matter systems . In this last context, the interest arises from experimental observations such as the quantum Hall effect or high-$T_c$ superconductivity in systems that are intrisically two-dimensional and whose quantum excitations are expected to be anyonic.

A system of two particles in a plane is the manifold $I\!R^2 - \{ 0
\}$ and for this reason the configuration space of a system of many particles in 2+1 dimensions is multiply connected. In 2+1 dimensions a particle interacts with another as with a composite object made out of a particle and a magnetic flux. The dynamics of a system of particles in the plane can thus be understood via an Aharonov-Bohm mechanism and the fractional statistics can be seen to emerge as a consequence of this fact. Furthermore, in 2+1 dimensions, the rotation group is abelian and therefore the angular momentum need not be quantized .

In $1+1$ dimensions the situation is topologically quite different and the existence of unusual statistics is hardly mentioned. A common procedure aimed at extracting information about the dynamics of (1+1)-dimensional systems is bosonization *i.e.*, a transformation that expresses the fermions in terms of bosonic fields and vice-versa. It is tacitly assumed, however, that the quantum excitations can be either bosonic or fermionic, and nothing else. Nevertheless, a minor modification of the usual Bose-Fermi transformations can lead to fields with intermediate statistics.

Furthermore, in one spatial dimension the rotation group is discrete and abelian so that, strictly speaking, spin does not exist. [^3] In complete analogy with the (2+1)-dimensional case, one could also expect a continuous interpolation of spin and statistics between bosons and fermions because the configuration space for a system of particles is also multiply connected and the group of reflections is abelian as well.

The possibility of having unusual spin and statistics in 1+1 dimensions is theoretically very attractive also because there exist one-dimensional systems (quantum wires) where properties like fractional spin could perhaps be experimentally observed.

Although the continuous interpolation of spin and statistics in $1+1$ dimensions was suggested by Leinaas and Myrheim (see also and ), the discussion found in the literature still remains rather formal. (Recently, the possibility of fractional statistics in $1+1$ dimensions has been considered following the definition of statistics proposed by Haldane, . In this article we shall not adopt that approach.)

In (2+1) dimensions the effective theory obtained after integrating the Chern-Simons field yields an explicit relation between the spin and the Chern-Simons coefficients. There is no analogous construction in (1+1) dimensions because there is no Chern-Simons action in this case.

The purpose of this note is to present a 1+1 dimensional model with the properties mentioned above and to show how the notion of spin can be related to the physical parameters of the interaction.

**2. Non-relativistic Model**

Let us consider two non-relativistic identical particles moving on a line. For this system the configuration space is multiply connected (the real line minus the origin) because the point where the particles collide is singular. Classically the particles cannot go through each other, bouncing off elastically every time they meet. Thus, the action of this system is defined on the half-line \[3,5\], i.e.

$$S~=~ \int^{t_2}_{t_1} dt\,{1\over 2} {\dot x}^2,
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (0<X< \infty),
\label{lagrang}$$ where $x$ is the relative position of the two particles. As it is well known, the Hamiltonian associated to () is not self-adjoint on the naive Hilbert space because there is no conservation of probability at $x=0$. The Hamiltonian for (), however, can be made self-adjoint by adopting a class of boundary conditions for all the states in the Hilbert space of the form

$$\psi^{'} (0) = \gamma \psi (0),
\label{condition}$$ where $\gamma$ is an arbitrary real parameter.

The calculation of the propagator to go from an initial relative position $x_1$ to a final one $x_2$ for the above problem gives ,

$$G_\gamma [x(t_2), x(t_1)] = G_0 (x_2 - x_1) + G_0 (x_2 + x_1)
- 2\gamma \int_0^\infty d\lambda e^{-\gamma \lambda} G_0 (x_2 + x_1 + \lambda),
\label{full}$$ where $G_0$ is the Green function for a free non-relativistic particle, *i.e*

$$G_0 (x - y) = {1\over \sqrt{2\pi i t}} {\displaystyle e}^{i{(x - y)}^2/ 2t}. \label{free}$$

Although in one spatial dimension it is not possible to rotate particles, they can be exchanged and their ''spin" and statistics can be determined by the (anti-) symmetry of the wave function. This (anti-) symmetry in turn depends on the values of the parameter $\gamma$.

This last fact can be seen by taking the limits $\gamma = 0$ and $\gamma = \infty$ of (3)

$$G_{\gamma= 0, \infty} = G_0 (x_2 - x_1) \pm G_0(x_2 + x_1),
\label{b-f}$$

Under exchange of the positions of two particles in initial or final states, $G_{\gamma=0}$ is even and $G_{\gamma =\infty}$ is odd. Thus, for $\gamma = 0$ ($\gamma = \infty$) and the particles behave as bosons (fermions). The cases $0 < \gamma <\infty$ give particles with fractional spin and statistics .

The propagator () can also be obtained in the path integral representation, summing over all paths $-\infty < x(t) < \infty$, but in the presence of a repulsive potential $\gamma \delta(x)$. This problem was considered in - and the result is

$$G_\gamma [x(t_2), x(t_1)] ~
=~ \int {\cal D} x(t) \,\,e^{iS},
\label{prop1}$$ with $$S~=~ \int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt ~\bigg({1\over 2}{\dot x}^2 + \gamma
\delta (x(t)) \biggr),
\label{act1}$$ Here ${\cal D}x(t)$ is the usual functional measure. The potential term $\gamma~ \delta(x(t))$ can be interpreted as a semi-transparent barrier at $x=0$ that allows the possibility of tunneling to the other side of the barrier. This is just another way of expressing the possibility of interchanging the (identical) particles.

It is also interesting to note here that although in (1+1) dimensions the rotation group is discrete and the definition of the spin is a matter of convention, one may nevertheless view the one-dimensional motion on the half-line as a radial motion with orbital angular momentum $l=0$ in a central potential. This gives rise to another possible definition of spin by taking the following representation for the $\delta$-function

$$\delta (x) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}
{\sqrt{\epsilon}\over {x^2 + \epsilon}}.$$

Making a series expansion around $\epsilon =0$, the leading term $\gamma\sqrt{\epsilon}/x^2$ is analogous to the centrifugal potential for the radial equation in a spherically symmetric system, with $\sqrt{\epsilon}\gamma$ playing the role of an intrinsic angular momentum squared. Thus the spin of the system ($s$) can be defined by

$$s^2 = \sqrt{\epsilon}\gamma.
\label{5}$$

For real $s$ () only makes sense when $\gamma>0$. This definition is consistent with the bosonic limit $\gamma =0$. For the fermionic case, the limit $\gamma = \infty$ mentioned above is to be interpreted as simultaneous with the limit $\epsilon  \rightarrow 0$ so that $\sqrt{\epsilon} \gamma =1/4$. It is in this sense that the non-relativistic quantum mechanics on the half-line describes one-dimensional anyons. However, the normalization $s=1/2$ for fermions is conventional.

**3. Relativistic Model**

In this section we generalize the previous results to the relativistic case. In order to do this one may either canonically quantize two free relativistic particles moving on the line, or use path integrals methods.

Let us start discussing the first approach. In analogy with the non relativistic case, one may write the relativistic generalization of (1) as $$S~=~ \int_{\tau_a}^{\tau_b} d\tau \biggl[ {1\over 2N}{\dot X}^2 -
{m^2\over 2} N  \biggr],
\label{act3}$$ where $N$ is the einbein along the worldline, $X^{\mu} = X_2^{\mu}
-X_1^{\mu}$ is a spacelike four vector whose spatial component is restricted to be positive. In () the ''conformal gauge" $\tau_1=\tau_2=\tau$ has been chosen.

The next step is to construct a covariant generalization of (2), namely $$\partial_\mu \psi = \gamma_\mu \psi,
\label{nbc}$$ where $\gamma_\mu = (\gamma_0, \gamma_1)$ is a two-vector whose components gives the two parameters that make the operator $\partial^2_0 - \partial^2_1 + m^2$ self-adjoint, and $\psi$ is a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation $$( \partial^2_0 - \partial^2_1 + m^2 ) \psi = 0.
\label{kg}$$

Conditions (11) are consistent only for spacelike $\gamma_\mu$. This is because for timelike $\gamma$ there exists a reference frame in which the particle would "bounce" at $X^0 = 0$ reversing its time direction and violating energy conservation. Thus, one concludes that in an appropriate ("rest") frame, $\gamma_\mu = (0, \gamma)$, or equivalently,

$$\begin{aligned}
{\partial \psi\over \partial t} \vert_{t=0} &=& 0, \nonumber
\\
{\partial \psi\over \partial x} \vert_{x=0} &=& \gamma \psi (x=0),
\label{cbc}
\end{aligned}$$ are consistent boundary conditions.

The calculation of the relativistic propagator is straightforward. In the proper-time gauge ${\dot N} = 0$, it gives $$G [X(\tau_b), X(\tau_a)] =
\int_0^\infty dT \int_{-\infty}^\infty
dp_0 dp_1 e^{-i{T\over 2}(p^2_0 - p^2_1 + m^2)} \psi^\ast (X(\tau_b))
\psi (X(\tau_a)).
\label{propa1}$$ Here $\psi$ are solutions of () with the boundary condition (), namely $$\psi = e^{ip_0 X^0} \biggl[ e^{ip_1 X^1} + R e^{-ip_1 X^1} \biggr],
\label{solution}$$ where $R$ is the reflection coefficient defined as $$R = {{ip_1 -\gamma}\over {ip_1 + \gamma}}.$$

Inserting () in () one finds the relativistic generalization of (3):

$$\begin{aligned}
G_\gamma [ X(\tau_b), X(\tau_a)] &=& {\cal N} {\displaystyle
\int}_0^\infty dT T^{-1} \exp \biggl[ i{{(\Delta X^0)}^2\over
2T} - i{m^2\over 2}T \biggr] \biggl( \exp \biggl[-i{{(X^1_b
-X^1_a)}^2\over 2T}\biggr] + \nonumber \\& & exp \biggl[-i{{(X^1_b
+ X^1_a)}^2\over 2T}\biggr]\biggr) - 2\gamma F_\gamma,
\label{propag}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}$ is a normalization constant, $\Delta X^=X^0_b -X^0_a$ $$\begin{aligned}
F_\gamma &=& \int_0^\infty d\lambda
\int_0^\infty  dT T^{-1}e^{i(\Delta X_0)^2/2T - im^2T/2 -\gamma \lambda +
i(X^1_a + X^1_b + \lambda)^2/2T} \nonumber
\\
&=& \int_0^\infty d \lambda e^{-\gamma \lambda}
G_0 [X(\tau_b) + X(\tau_a)+ \lambda]
\end{aligned}$$ and $G_0 [X(\tau_b) - X(\tau_a)]$ is the free relativistic propagator,

$$G_0 [X(\tau_b) - X(\tau_a)] = \int_0^\infty dT T^{-1}e^{i(\Delta X)^2/2T
-im^2T/2}.$$

Now let us consider the path integral formulation. The generalization of (7) is the action[^4] $$S~=~{1\over 2} \int_{\tau_a}^{\tau_b} d\tau \biggl[ {1\over N}{\dot X}^2 +
m^2 N + NV\biggr],
\label{actionn}$$ where $V$ is a contact potential chosen so that in an instantaneous rest frame the singularity occurs along the spatial direction, $$V|_{rest}=\gamma \delta(X^1 (\tau)).$$

In a generic frame the contact term would have a different expression but its physical meaning should remain unchanged. The presence of a $\delta$ function in the action allows the inclusion in the sum over histories of trajectories that extend to $X^1<0$. These paths can be taken into account if for each one that bounces off at $X=0$ one also includes the path produced by the reflection of the bounce to $X^1<0$ . This means changing the final state $X_b$ according to $X^1_b \rightarrow -X^1_b$, which is just an exchange of the particles in the final state.

Taking into account the contact terms, the propagator of the relativistic particle on the half-line in the proper time gauge ($\dot N =0$), is obtained:

$$\begin{aligned}
G_\gamma [ X(\tau_b), X(\tau_a)] &=& {\displaystyle\int}_0^\infty dN(0) \exp
\biggl[-{m^2 N(0)\Delta t\over 2}\biggr]
{\displaystyle\int} {\cal D}X^0 \exp \biggl[-{\displaystyle\int}_{\tau_a}^{\tau_b}d \tau {1\over
2N(0)} ({\dot X}^0)^{2}\biggr] \\ \nonumber
 & \times & {\displaystyle\int} {\cal D}X^1 \exp \biggl[-\displaystyle\int_{\tau_a}^{\tau_b}d \tau~
\biggl({1\over 2N(0)} ({\dot X}^1)^2 +i \gamma \delta (X^1(\tau))
\biggr) \biggr],
\end{aligned}$$ where $N(0)$ is the zero mode of $N(\tau)$.

The path integral over $X^0$ can be computed in analogy with a non-relativistic particle with 'mass'  $N^{-1}(0)$ in the interval $-\infty <X^0<+\infty$. The result is

$$\int {\cal D}X^0 \exp \biggl[-\displaystyle\int_{\tau_a}^{\tau_b}d \tau~ {(\dot X^0)^2
\over 2N(0)}\biggr] =  ~\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi iT}} \exp \biggl[-{(\Delta
X^0)^2\over 2T}\biggr]$$ with $T= N(0)\Delta \tau$.

The integral in $X^1$ can now be computed as the path integral for a non-relativistic particle with 'mass'  $N^{-1} (0)$ moving on the interval $-\infty <X^1 < \infty$. The relativistic propagator is then $$\begin{aligned}
G_\gamma [X(\tau_b), X(\tau_a)] &=& G_0 [X(\tau_b) - X(\tau_a)] +
G_0 [X(\tau_b) + X(\tau_a)] \nonumber
\\
&-& 2\gamma \int_0^\infty d\lambda e^{-\gamma \lambda}
G_0 [X(\tau_b) + X(\tau_a)+ \lambda].
\label{full'}
\end{aligned}$$

One may now check the consistency if () by taking the non-relativistic limit of (). The integration in $T$ is straightforward and the result is

$$\begin{aligned}
G_{\gamma} [ X(t_b), X(t_a)]~=& {\cal N} \biggl[ K_0 \biggl(
mc \Delta t \sqrt{1 -{{(X^1_b - X^1_a)}^2\over c^2 {\Delta t}^2}} \biggr) +
K_0 \biggl(
mc \Delta t \sqrt{1 -{{(X^1_b + X^1_a)}^2\over c^2 {\Delta t}^2}} \biggr)
 \\ \nonumber &
- 2 \gamma {\displaystyle\int}_0^\infty d \lambda e^{-i\gamma \lambda}
K_0\biggl(mc\Delta t \sqrt{1 + {{(X^1_b + X^1_a + \lambda)}^2 \over 2c^2
{\Delta t}^2}}\biggr)\biggr],
\label{nrl}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have inserted explicitly the speed of light ($c$) and ${\cal
N}$ is a normalization constant. In the limit $c\rightarrow \infty$ the Bessel functions $K_\nu$ become

$$K_\nu (z) \rightarrow \sqrt{{\pi\over z}}e^{-z},
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, z>>1,
\label{k}$$ for any order $\nu$. Using () in Minkowski space, () becomes[^5]

$$\begin{aligned}
 G_{\gamma } [ X(t_b), X(t_a)]~=& G_0 (X_b - X_a) + G_0
(X_b + X_a) \\ \nonumber & - 2\gamma {\displaystyle\int}_0^\infty d\lambda e^{ -\gamma
\lambda + imc^2 \Delta t} G_0 (X_b + X_a + \lambda),
\end{aligned}$$ which is the correct integral representation for the non-relativistic propagator on the half-line given in eq. (3).

Finally, one can observe that, after eliminating the Lagrange multiplier $N(\tau)$ from the relativistic action –by solving its own equation of motion–, the effective action for the system of two particles in a line can be written as $$S[X(\tau_2),X(\tau_1)] =m\int^{\tau_2}_{\tau_1} d\tau \sqrt{(\dot X)^2} +
\gamma \times n,
\label{efact}$$ where $n$ is the number of times $X^1(\tau)$ vanishes in the interval $\tau_1 <\tau <\tau_2$. In other words, the contact term (21) merely counts the number of crossings at $X^1 =0$ of each trajectory.

**4. Conclusions**

**a.** We have constructed a model for anyons in $1+1$ dimensions that is the analog of the ($2+1$)-dimensional case, both in the non-relativistic limit, as well as in its relativistic extension. The model is based on the observation that classically a system of two particles on a line is equivalent to that of one particle on a half-line. The statistics of the system can be read off from the propagator (3) in the non-relativistic case, and from (17) (or (26)) in the relativistic case, which is also the exact formula for a free scalar field theory on the half-line. The model can be considered also as the relativistic generalization of the problem discussed by Clark, Menikoff and Sharp and Farhi and Gutmann .

**b.** The parameter $\gamma$, which is related to the properties of the contact interaction between identical particles, is the analogue of the Chern-Simons coefficient $\sigma$. The ($2+1$)-dimensional expression for the spin, $s = \sigma/4\pi$, is replaced in $1+1$ dimensions by $s =
\sqrt{\epsilon} \gamma$. In the non-relativistic case, our model provides a new interpretion of the model discussed in \[12,13\]. The interpretation of $\gamma>0$ as the spin of the particle remains valid in the relativistic case because (9) is the right expression for the coefficient of the centrifugal potential for a relativistic particle in a spherically symmetric field.

**c.** The non-relativistic quantum system on the half-line is a particular case of the Yang-Yang model for two particles , and the relativistic result presented here can be seen as the corresponding generalization of that model. This may also be seen as the reason *in profundis* for the appearence of anyons in $1+1$ dimensions.

**d.** The relativistic propagator in $1+1$ dimensions can also be obtained for the special case of spin $1/2$ by computing the Polyakov spin factor of the spinning particle. This calculation is straightforward and gives the effective action $m\sqrt{{\dot X}^2} + \nu$, where $\nu$ is the number of self-intersections of the wordline .

Our results seem to agree in spirit with the spin factor calculation of , but with $\nu=\gamma n$ \[c.f. eq. ()\], where $n$ is the number of collisions between the particles \[e.g., collisions with the barrier at $X^1=0$, in the formulation of the problem with the restriction $X^1>0$, or the number of crossings through the barrier at $X^1=0$ in the formulation without that restriction (using the contact potential)\]. The connection with the spin factor calculation can be made more manifest by the following argument: Take all the nonintersecting paths that join a given pair of points in $X^1$–space, and for each of them, take also its reflection about $X^1=0$. Then the number of self intersections of the loop formed by the two paths (joining their ends at $t=-\infty$ and at $t=+\infty$), is just $n$. So, modulo a normalization, the effective action obtained by Polyakov's approach is the same as the one given here. There remains a puzzling point, however, because the two actions would exactly match for $\gamma=1$, which is neither the bosonic ($\gamma=0$) nor the fermionic case ($\gamma=\infty$).

It is a pleasure to acknowledge many helpful comments and suggestions by Professor Roberto Iengo, who was involved in the initial stages of this work. We would like to thank also Professor Abdus Salam, Unesco and the International Atomic Energy Agency for hospitality at the ICTP, Trieste. This work was partially supported by grants 193.0910, 194.0203 and 195.0278 from FONDECYT (Chile), by DICYT-USACH, by a European Communities research contract, by institutional support to the Centro de Estudios Cientı́ficos de Santiago provided by SAREC (Sweden), and by a group of chilean private companies (COPEC, CMPC, ENERSIS, CGE). This research was also sponsored by CAP, IBM and XEROX de Chile. J.G also thanks the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for financial support.

[^1]: E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com

[^2]: E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com, email@example.com

[^3]: The rotation group in 1 spatial dimension reduces to the discrete group of reflections on a plane, **Z$_2$**, so that the notion of angular momentum as related to the dimension of its irreducible representations becomes meaningless.

[^4]: For simplicity we work here in Euclidean space

[^5]: The exponential $e^{-mc^2\Delta t}$ (or $e^{imc^2\Delta
    t}$, when rotated back to Minkowski space) can be absorbed in a renormalization of the energy by $H\rightarrow H-mc^2$ or by a constant shift in the Lagrangian $L\rightarrow L+mc^2$.