abstract: While deep neural networks have succeeded in several visual applications, such as object recognition, detection, and localization, by reaching very high classification accuracies, it is important to note that many real-world applications demand varying costs for different types of misclassification errors, thus requiring cost-sensitive classification algorithms. Current models of deep neural networks for cost-sensitive classification are restricted to some specific network structures and limited depth. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that can be applied to deep neural networks with any structure to facilitate their learning of meaningful representations for cost-sensitive classification problems. Furthermore, the framework allows end-to-end training of deeper networks directly. The framework is designed by augmenting auxiliary neurons to the output of each hidden layer for layer-wise cost estimation, and including the total estimation loss within the optimization objective. Experimental results on public benchmark visual data sets with two cost information settings demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art cost-sensitive deep learning models.
address: Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering
  National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
  `firstname.lastname@example.com, email@example.com`
bibliography: mybib.bib
title: Cost-Sensitive Deep Learning with Layer-Wise Cost Estimation

# Introduction

Deep learning has shown great success on a broad range of visual applications such as object recognition , detection , localization , and video classification . Problems in such applications belong to a large class of regular classification in which the main evaluation metric is accuracy, implying each type of misclassification error is penalized equally.

Nevertheless, using accuracy as the evaluation metric for learning does not always produce the most useful classification system in the real world. In fact, many real-world applications , including vision related, demand varying costs for different types of misclassification errors. For example, different costs are useful for building a realistic face recognition system , in which a government staff being misrecognized as an impostor causes only a slight inconvenience; however, an imposer misrecognized as a staff can result in serious damage. Even in a simple digit recognition task, varying costs can be helpful in representing the nature of the task, as it is common and understandable to classify an ill-written $7$ as $1$ but classifying a $7$ as a $4$ would be laughable. Such real-world applications call for cost-sensitive classification algorithms, which aim to identify the best classifier under the application-demanded costs.

Much research effort has been made to study cost-sensitive classification algorithms. In , the researchers proposed to equip probabilistic classifiers with Bayes decision theory to enable the classifiers to consider the cost information during prediction. Some other studies extended existing cost-insensitive classification algorithms to be cost-sensitive, such as support vector machine  or neural network . Recently, as deep neural networks (DNN) have become state-of-the-art on a broad range of machine learning applications , researchers are attempting to incorporate cost information into training DNN .

One successful DNN for cost-sensitive classification, called Cost-Sensitive DNN (CSDNN), has been recently proposed in . The training process of CSDNN consists of two steps. The first step is to initialize the DNN by layer-wise pretraining using a cost-sensitive variant of the conventional auto-encoder . The second step involves the fine-tuning of the DNN with a cost-sensitive loss function. The final CSDNN is thus cost-sensitive in both pretraining and training stages, and is shown to be a state-of-the-art algorithm that outperforms other existing cost-sensitive classification algorithms and some deep learning alternatives.

While CSDNN is state-of-the-art, its design is based on the conventional fully-connected DNN with sigmoid activation functions and experiences two issues. First, the design restricts the applicability to more modern structures such as convolutional  and pooling layers. Second, the sigmoid activation function suffers from the problem of diminishing gradients when the network deepens, even after careful pretraining.

In this paper, we resolve these issues by proposing a novel framework for cost-sensitive deep learning. To build a cost-sensitive DNN for a $K$-class cost-sensitive classification problem, the proposed framework replaces the layer-wise pretraining step with layer-wise cost estimation, in which $K$ additional neurons are added to the output of each hidden layer. These $K$ additional neurons serve as auxiliary units that help the DNN learn meaningful representations towards estimating the costs in each layer. Experiments conducted on four benchmark visual data sets and two cost information settings validate that the proposed framework outperforms CSDNN. Furthermore, we show that the proposed framework can be easily and effectively attached to deep neural networks with ReLU  activation functions or convolutional neural networks like AlexNet , demonstrating that the framework provides a more general end-to-end solution for cost-sensitive deep learning than CSDNN. The benefits of performance and generality make the proposed framework a favorable choice in practice.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section , we formally define the cost-sensitive classification problem and introduce related works. Then, we illustrate our proposed framework in Section , and validate the framework with vision-related data sets in Section . Finally, we conclude in Section .

# Preliminary

We start by formalizing the regular (cost-insensitive) classification problem and extend it to the cost-sensitive setting in Section . We then introduce some important deep learning research conducted to tackle cost-sensitive classification in Section .

## Cost-Sensitive Classification

In a $K$-class regular classification problem, a size-$N$ training set $S = \{(\mathbf{x}_{n}, y_{n})\}_{n = 1} ^ {N}$ is given, where each input vector $\mathbf{x}_{n}$ is within an input space $\mathcal{X}\subseteq \mathbb{R} ^ {D}$, and each label $y_{n}$ is within a label space $\mathcal{Y} = \{1, 2, ..., K\}$. Regular classification aims at using $S$ to train a classifier $g\colon \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ such that the expected error $\llbracket y\neq g(\mathbf{x})\rrbracket$ on the test examples $(\mathbf{x}, y)$ is small.[^1] That is, each type of misclassification error is charged with the same penalty.

Cost-sensitive classification extends regular classification by penalizing each type of misclassification error differently according to some given costs. We consider a general cost-vector setting  when designing the proposed framework. The cost-vector setting represents the cost information by coupling an additional cost vector $\mathbf{c} \in [0, \infty) ^ {K}$ with each example $(\mathbf{x}, y)$, where the $k$-th component $\mathbf{c}[k]$ of the cost vector $\mathbf{c}$ denotes the cost of predicting $\mathbf{x}$ as class $k$, and naturally $\mathbf{c}[y] = 0$. Consider a cost-sensitive training set $S_{c} = \{(\mathbf{x}_{n}, y_{n}, \mathbf{c}_{n})\}_{n = 1} ^ {N}$, cost-sensitive classification aims at using $S_{c}$ to train a classifier $g_{c}\colon \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ such that the expected cost $\mathbf{c}[g_{c}(\mathbf{x})]$ on the test examples $(\mathbf{x}, y, \mathbf{c})$ is small.

A special case of the cost-vector setting is the cost-matrix setting, where the cost information is encoded by a $K \times K$ cost matrix $\mathbf{C}$ and each entry $\mathbf{C}(y, k) \in [0, \infty)$ indicates the cost for predicting a class-$y$ example as class $k$. The information within the cost matrix can be simply cast as the cost vectors by defining the cost vector in $(\mathbf{x}, y, \mathbf{c})$ as the $y$-th row of the cost matrix $\mathbf{C}$. The cost-matrix setting, albeit less general, allows real-world applications to specify their demanded costs more easily. We follow many earlier cost-sensitive classification works  to take the cost-matrix setting when conducting benchmark experiments.

## Deep Learning for Cost-Sensitive Classification

Nowadays, most DNNs are designed to solve regular classification problems . Those DNNs usually consist of several hidden layers with a softmax layer of $K$ neurons at the end. Each input vector $\mathbf{x}$ propagates through different hidden layers and is transformed into different levels of latent representations. The softmax layer converts the last latent representation into per-class probability estimation, and takes the class with the highest estimated probability as the prediction $g(\mathbf{x})$ of the network.

On the other hand, only few works have explored cost-sensitive classification using shallow or deep neural networks. studied how sampling and threshold-moving can make the neural network cost-sensitive to tackle the class imbalance problem; proposed four approaches of modifying neural networks for cost-sensitivity. Nevertheless, both works focused on relatively shallow networks and thus can hardly be viewed as general cost-sensitive deep learning algorithms.

In , a cost-sensitive deep learning algorithm called Cost-Sensitive DNN (CSDNN) was proposed. In terms of the network structure, CSDNN starts with a regular DNN with fully-connected layers, but replaces the softmax layer at the end of the DNN by a cost-estimation layer. Each of the $K$ neurons in the cost-estimation layer provides per-class cost estimation with regression instead of per-class probability estimation. Then, the class with the lowest estimated cost can be naturally taken as the prediction $g_c(\mathbf{x})$ of the network. proposed to train the structure with a cost-sensitive loss function $L_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ on the cost-estimation layer. [^2]

then found that the performance of the network can be further improved by careful pretraining, and proposed a Cost-Sensitive Auto-Encoder (CSAE) to pretrain the structure above in a layer-wise manner. CSAE operates similar to a conventional auto-encoder , which is a shallow neural network that maps any input $\mathbf{x}$ to a representation such that the output $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}$ is a close reconstruction of the original input. The reconstruction error is commonly measured by cross-entropy loss, denoted by $L_{\mathrm{CE}}$. What makes CSAE different is that the shallow network is augmented with $K$ additional output neurons for cost estimation. That is, CSAE attempts to not only reconstruct $\mathbf{x}$ but also digest the cost information by estimating the cost vector $\mathbf{c}$. The attempt is represented with a mixture loss $(1\!-\!\beta) \cdot L_{\mathrm{CE}} + \beta \cdot L_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ with a balancing coefficient $\beta \in [0, 1]$ on the output layer of CSAE. When $\beta\!=\!0$, CSAE degrades to a conventional auto-encoder.

Figure  illustrates how CSAE is used to pretrain CSDNN. With the pretraining, each layer of (initial) latent representations in CSDNN carries some ability to estimate the costs. That is, the pretraining makes the latent representations *cost-aware*. reported that such initialization indeed allows CSDNN to converge to a better optima and to reach state-of-the-art performance.

# Proposed Framework

While CSDNN is state-of-the-art, its design is based on fully-connected layers with sigmoid activation functions and thus suffers from some issues. Next, we discuss the issues behind CSDNN that motivate us to study a general framework that allows conducting cost-sensitive deep learning more effectively and effortlessly in Section . Then we present our proposed framework in Section .

## Motivation

Arguably the key idea within CSDNN is pretraining with CSAE. To understand the issues behind CSDNN, we first review the necessity of pretraining for general deep learning. In earlier years, neural networks used sigmoid or hyperbolic-tangent activation functions for non-linear transformation in the hidden layers . Both functions, which exhibit flatness in part of their curves, can cause the gradients of the network to be small. As the depth of the network increases, the small gradients in the latter layers of the network make the gradients in the earlier layers even smaller during back-propagation, a phenomenon known as the diminishing gradients. The phenomenon results in poor local optima of the entire network, and restricts the depth of earlier neural networks . tackled the diminishing-gradient problem by proposing a greedy layer-wise pretraining strategy with Restricted Boltzmann Machines and auto-encoders for initializing the weights of DNN. Pretraining helped mitigate the problem to some degree, but the problem would resurface as the network deepens if we stick with the same activation functions.

In recent years, another route to resolve the diminishing-gradient problem is to consider other activation functions, such as the rectifier linear unit (ReLU) . As ReLU does not suffer from the diminishing-gradient problem as much as sigmoid or hyperbolic-tangent activation functions, pretraining is no longer necessary . Nowadays, ReLU and many of its variants  become the mainstream activation functions in modern deep learning studies .

CSDNN  intended to conduct cost-sensitive deep learning by mimicking what  did for regular deep learning: using sigmoid activation functions, and adopting greedy laywer-wise pretraining. Thus, CSDNN carries the same problem of diminishing gradients when the network deepens, as our experimental results in Section  will demonstrate. To keep cost-sensitive deep learning up to date with modern deep learning studies, it is then necessary to conduct cost-sensitive deep learning with other routes, such as adopting ReLU and removing the pretraining stage.

Nevertheless, directly removing the pretraining stage in CSDNN throws away one important benefit of CSAE in making the latent representations cost-aware. Next, we present our proposed framework to rescue the benefit. As we shall demonstrate later, the proposed framework carries an additional advantage of being generally applicable to a wide range of network structures and activation functions, including but not limited to ReLU.

## Layer-Wise Cost Estimation

Our key goal is to construct a DNN that can simultaneously enjoy the benefit of cost-aware representation extraction (similar to that provided by CSAE), and the flexibility of using any structures. CSAE achieved cost-aware representation extraction by using $K$ additional neurons in the auto-encoder for cost estimation. Our key idea is to also use $K$ additional neurons for cost estimation, but instead of adding them to the auto-encoders that are separated from the DNN, we propose to directly put $K$ neurons into each layer of the DNN. That is, we propose to replace CSAEs by "merging" their additional neurons with the DNN of our interest. The proposed structure is illustrated with Figure . By dressing the original DNN with $K$ additional neurons in each layer that serve as auxiliary outputs, the extracted latent representations carry some ability to estimate the costs, thus achieving cost-aware representation extraction almost effortlessly.

As shown in Figure , in addition to augmenting $K$ additional neurons to each layer of the DNN, we follow CSDNN and replace the output layer of the DNN with a cost-estimation layer. Then, the only remaining task is to train the "upgraded" DNN with a proper loss function. We consider a simple weighted-mixture loss function of the main one-sided regression loss function at the output layer, and the auxiliary one-sided regression loss functions at the hidden layers. In particular, let $L^{(i)}_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ denote the auxiliary loss function for the output of the $i$-th hidden layer and $L^{(*)}_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ denote the main loss function at the output layer, we train the upgraded DNN with the loss $$\label{eq:different_alpha}
    \sum^{H - 1}_{i = 1}\alpha_{i} \cdot L^{(i)}_{\mathrm{OSR}} + L^{(*)}_{\mathrm{OSR}},$$ where $H$ is the number of hidden layers in the DNN, and $\alpha_{i}$ is the balancing coefficient for $L^{(i)}_{\mathrm{OSR}}$. [^3]

With the proposed structural addons and the mixture loss function, we are now ready to present the full framework in Algorithm . The framework will be named as Auxiliary Internal Targets (AuxIT). While the novel framework appears simple, it carries many practical benefits. With the framework, we can now flexibly use ReLU or other activation functions and thus avoid diminishing-gradient problem. We can also build cost-sensitive DNN with any structures, such as image inputs with convolutional and pooling layers. Furthermore, we can apply this framework directly and effortlessly on any state-of-the-art DNN structures such as VGG  and ResNet  for solving large-scale cost-sensitive classification problems.

# Experiments

Three sets of experiments are conducted to validate the usefulness of the proposed AuxIT framework.

## Setup

Four benchmark visual data sets are used throughout the three experiments: MNIST, CIFAR-10 , CIFAR-100 , and Caltech-256 . MNIST belongs to handwritten digit recognition task where each example is a $28 \times 28$ gray-scale digit image; CIFAR-10 is a well-known image recognition data set with 10 classes where the size of each image is $3 \times 32 \times 32$ (3 for RGB); CIFAR-100 is just like CIFAR-10, except it has 100 classes; Caltech-256 is another popular object recognition data set that contains 256 classes, and the size of each RGB image is roughly $300 \times 400$ in average. For all data sets, the training and testing splits follow the source websites; the input vectors in training set are linearly scaled to $[0, 1]$, and the input vectors in the testing sets are scaled accordingly. We use MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 in our first two experiments, and Caltech-256 in our last experiment.

The four data sets were originally collected for regular (cost-insensitive) classification and thus contain no cost information. We adopt the most frequently-used benchmark in cost-sensitive learning, the randomized proportional setup , to generate the costs. For a regular data set $S = \{(\mathbf{x}_{n}, y_{n})\}_{n = 1} ^ {N}$, the setup first generates a $K \times K$ matrix $\mathbf{C}$, and sets the diagonal entries $\mathbf{C}(y, y)$ to 0 while sampling the non-diagonal entries $\mathbf{C}(y, k)$ uniformly from $[0, 10\frac{|\{n: y_{n} = k\}|}{|\{n: y_{n} = y\}|}]$. Then, for each example $(\mathbf{x}_{n}, y_{n})$ in $S$, its cost vector $\mathbf{c}_{n}$ is defined as the $y_{n}$-th row of matrix $\mathbf{C}$. The randomized proportional setup generates the cost information that takes the class distribution of the data set into account, charging a higher cost (in expectation) for misclassifying a minority class, and can thus be used to deal with imbalanced classification problems.

Arguably one of the most important use of cost-sensitive classification is to deal with imbalanced data sets. Nevertheless, the first three data sets MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 are somewhat balanced, and the randomized proportional setup may generate similar cost for each type of misclassification error. To better meet the real-world usage scenario and increase the diversity of data sets, we further conduct experiments to evaluate the algorithms with imbalanced data sets. In particular, for each of the first three data sets MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100, we construct a variant data set by randomly picking 40% of the classes and removing 70% of the examples that belong to those 40% classes. We will name these imbalanced variants as $\mathrm{MNIST}_{\mathrm{imb}}$, $\mathrm{CIFAR}$-$\mathrm{10}_{\mathrm{imb}}$, and $\mathrm{CIFAR}$-$\mathrm{100}_{\mathrm{imb}}$, respectively.

Our first experiment in Section  intends to investigate the relationship between the balancing coefficient $\alpha_{i}$ in () for using AuxIT and the performance. Our second experiment in Section  compares DNN equipped with AuxIT framework with state-of-the-art CSDNN  to show the usefulness of AuxIT. For the first and the second experiments, the cost information was generated by the randomized proportional setup. Interestingly, there exists a top-down hierarchical tree structure for the 256 classes in Caltech-256 data set, from that hierarchy tree, we can easily define the cost information based on the closeness between each class. Therefore, our last experiment, presented in Section , was an interesting cost-sensitive classification problem where the cost information was based on the category closeness. We apply AuxIT to the well-known AlexNet  to tackle this challenging cost-sensitive classification task and reports the achieved performance to encourage future researchers to continue to work on this task. In each of the three experiments, we will describe the goal of the experiment, present the experimental results, and provide discussions and conclusions.

## How does $\alpha_{i}$ affect AuxIT?

In our proposed Auxiliary Internal Targets (AuxIT) framework, $K$ additional neurons are added in parallel to each of the hidden layer in DNN. As an example $\mathbf{x}$ propagates through the network, in addition to the final prediction layer, the DNN also outputs $K$ values in each hidden layer. Same with the final prediction layer, these additional $K$ neurons in each hidden layer also aim to estimate the per-class costs, and are coupled with $L_{\mathrm{OSR}}$. The final objective function for optimizing the entire DNN turns out to be a weighted sum of the main one-sided loss for the final prediction layer and the auxiliary one-sided loss for all hidden layers, and has the form ().

In this experiment, we would like to investigate the relationship between the selection of $\alpha_{i}$ in () and the performance (average test costs) of AuxIT framework. To simplify the experiment, we keep all coefficients $\alpha_{i}$ to identical values, that is, $\alpha_{1} = \alpha_{2} = ... = \alpha_{H - 1} = \alpha$, and () becomes: $$\label{eq:same_alpha}
    \alpha \cdot \sum^{H - 1}_{i = 1} L^{(i)}_{\mathrm{OSR}} + L^{(*)}_{\mathrm{OSR}},$$ and we increase the value of $\alpha$ from $0$ to $1$ by a step $0.1$. MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and their imbalanced variants are used in this experiment, and their cost information is generated by randomized proportional setup described in Section . We constructed fully-connected DNN with varying numbers of hidden layers $H = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$, where each hidden layer consists of 1024 neurons. Note that our proposed AuxIT framework can be applied to DNN consists of any kind of layers, but since our goal in current experiment is not to pursue the best performance but to investigate more about AuxIT, we choose to use only fully-connected layers for constructing DNN in order to reduce the amount of hyper-parameters.

The experimental results are shown in Figure . For each data set, we plot 5 curves (because we tested with 5 kinds of numbers of hidden layers), where the x-axis is the value of $\alpha$, and the y-axis is the corresponding average test costs achieved. Note that when $\alpha = 0$, it means that the DNN does not make use of AuxIT framework. From the six figures, no matter how many hidden layers there are, roughly U-shaped curves could be observed, and the lowest average test costs were achieved when $\alpha$ fell in the range $0.2 \sim 0.5$, implying that $\alpha$ within this range best balanced (). Another phenomenon we can observe from these six figures is that, when the number of hidden layers increased from 1 to 3, the performance was improved as the entire curve moved downward; but when the number of hidden layers continued to increase from 3 to 5, the performance could not be further improved and even got worse. Such phenomenon could probably be attributed to overfitting - the training examples of MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100 are only 60K, 50K, and 50K, respectively, and their imbalanced counterparts contain even less examples due to the removals, so using more than 3 hidden layers would be overkilling.

## Compare with state-of-the-art

In this experiment, we build two DNNs with and without AuxIT framework and compare them to state-of-the-art Cost-sensitive Deep Neural Network (CSDNN) . We emphasize the two major drawbacks of CSDNN here:

1.  CSDNN uses sigmoid functions for non-linear transformations, and this will eventually results in diminishing gradients when the network grows deeper.

2.  CSDNN can be applied to DNN that consists of only fully-connected layers, this puts limits on its potential to be extended and applied to more challenging tasks that require modern neural components such as convolution and pooling layers.

To give CSDNN a fair chance of comparison, the two DNNs we build also consist of only fully-connected layers, and ReLU is used as activation function. The first DNN is equipped with AuxIT by setting $\alpha_{i} = 0.2$, as $0.2$ was found to be one of the best value balancing for () in Section , we will refer to this DNN as AuxDNN. The second DNN, which will be referred to as NaiveDNN, did not make use of AuxIT and was directly optimized by $L_{\mathrm{OSR}}$, it is equivalent to setting $\alpha = 0$ in ().

The experimental results are displayed in Figure . The x-axis is the number of hidden layers and the y-axis is the corresponding average test costs achieved. As we can observe from Figure , when the number of hidden layers was less than or equal to three, CSDNN outperformed NaiveDNN probably because CSAE were doing cost-aware feature extraction relatively well, which accorded to the experimental results in . When the number of hidden layers exceeded three, all of the three models began to suffer from overfitting, causing their average test costs to increase. However, by looking at CSDNN and NaiveDNN, it was interesting to observe that although the average test costs of both models increased, the extent of increment of CSDNN was larger than that of NaiveDNN. We inferred that this phenomenon was ascribed to the diminishing gradients caused by sigmoid functions used in CSDNN, and although CSAE had done their best to mitigate this problem when the network was relatively shallow, CSDNN can still not escape the fate of diminishing gradients when the network grew deeper. This phenomenon could not be observed in  because the deepest network they built had only three hidden layers. As for AuxDNN, it significantly outperformed both CSDNN and NaiveDNN regardless of the number of hidden layers, this further demonstrated the usefulness of our proposed AuxIT framework.

To have a more comprehensive understanding on what the auxiliary outputs are doing, we also record the layer-wise one-sided training loss of AuxDNN with three hidden layers and plot the learning curve in Figure  (we only plot the results of CIFAR-10, as the results of MNIST and CIFAR-100 are similar to CIFAR-10). Since it's AuxDNN with three hidden layers, there would be two auxiliary outputs and one main output at the end. From the figure, we can observe that the earlier layers primarily serve as assistance, as their training loss decrease much slower than the last layer, which is the main target.

## Category Closeness as Cost Information

In Section  and , the cost information for all data sets are generated by randomized proportional setup. In our third experiment, instead of randomized proportional setup, we use a property featured in Caltech-256 data set to generate a much more interesting and realistic cost information. In Caltech-256, the 256 classes present a top-down hierarchical tree structure. Since the 256 classes present a hierarchy tree, the cost of classifying a class-A instance as class B could be interestingly and intuitively defined by the distance between class A and class B within the hierarchy tree. For example, in Figure , the cost of classifying a baseball bat as a baseball glove is 2, since it takes only two steps to go from baseball bat to baseball glove through the tree paths; while the cost of classifying a baseball bat as a tennis racket is 4.

We apply the AuxIT framework to the well-known AlexNet  to tackle this cost-sensitive classification problem. AlexNet consists of five convolutional layers and three fully-connected layers. We use the off-the-shelf implementation of AlexNet provided in , but replace the last softmax layer with regression outputs for per-class cost estimation so that we can apply $L_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ and the AuxIT framework. There are around 30K images in Caltech-256, we randomly split 20K images for training and the rest 10K images for testing. As there are 60 million parameters to be learned in AlexNet, a training set contains only 20K images turns out to be insufficient to learn so many parameters without considerable overfitting if we train the entire AlexNet on Caltech-256 from scratch. To deal with this problem, we first take AlexNet pretrained on ImageNet  provided in  as initialization, then replace the softmax layer with regression outputs, and finally fine-tune the AlexNet on Caltech-256. The final AlexNet equipped with AuxIT framework is shown in Figure , and will be referred to as AuxAlexNet. One may wonder that how come a DNN trained for a regular classification task can be transferred to a cost-sensitive classification one. However, this turns out to be not a problem, and will be discussed later.

We compare AuxAlexNet with the original AlexNet, which is set as the cost-blind deep learning baseline. The original AlexNet is also first pretrained on ImageNet, then fine-tuned on Caltech-256. Similar to the first experiment in Section , we will also try varying values for $\alpha$ to observe how $\alpha$ interacts with the performance of AuxAlexNet. The experimental results are shown in Figure . As we can see from the results, AuxAlexNet achieved very different average test costs with different $\alpha$, but still outperformed the original AlexNet in most cases. It is actually not surprising to see that the transfer learning from a regular classification task to a cost-sensitive classification one works quite well. Recall that the function of DNN is feature extraction, and the cost information in a cost-sensitive classification task just further asks the DNN to pay more attention on some specific features to prevent misclassifying those examples that belong to some really important classes (will need to pay relatively high cost if misclassify them). In this experiment, we give an example of how to apply the proposed AuxIT framework to a modern network to tackle cost-sensitive classification problem, and the experimental results on Caltech-256 with category closeness as cost information validate the usefulness of the AuxIT framework.

# Conclusion and Future Work

We propose a novel framework Auxiliary Internal Targets (AuxIT) for general end-to-end cost-sensitive deep learning. Different from the previous approaches, the framework can be applied to DNN that consists of any structures to tackle challenging cost-sensitive classification problems. Extensive experimental results on MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Caltech-256 with two cost information settings demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed framework for making any advanced DNN models cost-sensitive. In the future, we will build a deeper network with AuxIT framework to tackle ImageNet cost-sensitive classification problem.

[^1]: The boolean operation $\llbracket \cdot \rrbracket$ is 1 if the condition is true, and 0 otherwise.

[^2]: The term $L_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ stands for One-Sided Regression and roots from a cost-sensitive SVM work . Details are omitted here for lack of space.

[^3]: There is no need to consider $L^{(H)}_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ for the outputs of the last hidden layer, as the main loss function $L^{(*)}_{\mathrm{OSR}}$ readily conducts cost estimation.


abstract: Chances of a gambler are always lower than chances of a casino in the case of an ideal, mathematically perfect roulette, if the capital of the gambler is limited and the minimum and maximum allowed bets are limited by the casino. However, a realistic roulette is not ideal: the probabilities of realisation of different numbers slightly deviate. Describing this deviation by a statistical distribution with a width $\delta$ we find a critical $\delta$ that equalizes chances of gambler and casino in the case of a simple strategy of the game: the gambler always puts equal bets to the last N numbers. For up-critical $\delta$ the expected return of the roulette becomes positive. We show that the dramatic increase of gambler's chances is a manifestation of bunching of numbers in a non-ideal roulette. We also estimate the critical starting capital needed to ensure the low risk game for an indefinite time.
author: A. V. Kavokin; A. S. Sheremet; M. Yu. Petrov
date: 2024-10-01
title: Bunching of numbers in a non-ideal roulette: the key to winning strategies

# Introduction

Roulette is one the most famous games of hasard. It is equally famous as a mathematical toy model. In a European roulette, which we mostly discuss in this Letter, a croupier spins a wheel in one direction, then spins a ball in the opposite direction around a tilted circular track running around the circumference of the wheel. The ball eventually loses momentum and falls onto the wheel and into one of 37 colored and numbered pockets on the wheel . It has been shown a long time ago that a casino has always better chances than a gambler for the simple reason that the probability of realisation of any number is $1/37$, while in the case of win the gambler collects his/her bet times 36 (for a recent review see ). In the American roulette, the chances of a gambler are even lower as the wheel has 38 sectors (numbers from 0 to 36 and the double zero sector), while betting on a number a player only collects 36 times the bet in the case of win. Multiple strategies have been invented over centuries to circumvent this simple mathematics that necessarily gives better chances to a casino than to a gambler . As an example, the popular *martingale* strategy relies on the game of chances (e.g. red and black), where the bet is doubled in the case of win. The probability to win is $%
18/37<1/2$ each time, while gamblers try to increase their chances by doubling their bets after each loss and coming back to the initial bet after each win. Clearly, on a long time scale this strategy may only work if the capital of the gambler is unlimited and the casino imposes no limits to the bets, that is never the case. Other strategies are based on an intuitive feeling of gamblers that a roulette might have memory. Assuming this, they believe that if e.g. "red" came 10 times in row, there is a higher probability for " black" to come on the 11th spin, as the system must tend to equalize the number of black and red outcomes. As there is no any rational reason for roulette to have memory, this strategy is doomed to fail on a long time-scale. In a similar way, none of "winning strategies" may provide better chances to a gambler than to a casino on a long time-scale (number of spins tending to infinity). If a gambler has an initial capital $C$ his/her chances to double this capital are lower than the chances to lose it by at least 1/37 independently of the adapted strategy.

Still, there are professional roulette players who manage to collect steady profits from their matter. They exploit deviations of all realistic mechanical roulettes from the ideal. These deviations may be caused by the geometry of the roulette, correlation between the speed of spinning and the initial velocity of the ball, as well as by human factors: a croupier is not a random number generator, after all. Some well-trained croupiers may want sending balls to preselected sectors of the wheel on purpose of overplaing gamblers who place their bets in opposite sectors. All these factors result in a non-uniform distribution of probabilities for realisation of different numbers.

# Theoretical model

Let us assume that the distribution of probabilities is a smooth function with the maximum at 1/37 and Gaussian tails. Later we shall also consider a linear distribution function for the sake of comparison. Renumbering all numbers of the roulette in the order of increasing probability of realisation, $k=0,1,\ldots ,36$ we set the probability for the number $k$ to be realised as $$P\left( k\right) =%
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{37}\exp \left( -\delta ^{2}\left( k-18\right) ^{2}/2\right) , &
k\leq 18, \\
\frac{1}{37}\left[ 2-\exp \left( -\delta ^{2}\left( k-18\right)
^{2}/2\right) \right] , & k>18.%
\end{cases}
\label{eq_Gauss_distribution}$$ $k=0$ has the lowest probability with $P(0) =(1/37)\exp(-162\delta^{2})$, $%
k=36$ has the highest probability with $P(36) = 2/37 - P(0)$ and $P(18)=1/37$ for any $\delta$. In Fig. (a), we show the probability distribution $P(k)$ for different values of $\delta$. It is instructive to consider also the ratio between the highest and the lowest probability: $$\xi =\frac{P\left( 36\right) }{P\left( 0\right) }=2\exp \left( 162\delta
^{2}\right) -1,$$ which is shown in Fig.(b).

The following formalism is independent of the specific shape of $P(k)$, while, of course, the numerical results may be affected by the choice of $%
P(k)$, as discussed below.

We underline that the correspondence between the numbers $k$ and the real numbers on the roulette wheel is unknown to us, and we do not intend to know it. Frequently, experienced gamblers try to collect statistics of realisation of different numbers over several hundred spins, select "happy" numbers and then keep steadily playing on these numbers. This is a time consuming method that sometimes meets disapproval by casino administrations. Moreover, test measurements for "happy numbers" need to be re-done frequently, as e.g. croupier gets replaced, speed of spinning may be reset etc. A much simpler method suitable for an amateur consists in betting on the last sequence of numbers realised. Many casinos display the last numbers for the convenience of gamblers. We shall consider the case of a gambler with a sufficient starting capital always playing the last $N$ numbers placing equal bets on each number. The advantage of this method is that it does not rely on any statistics collected previously and easily adapts to the changes imposed by the casino.

Here we prove that the method may be also considered as a convenient tool for the measurement of the parameters $\delta$ and $\xi$ characterising the distribution of probabilities. In particular, we shall be looking for the critical value of $\delta$ or $\xi$ that provides a sufficient bunching of numbers which equalizes the chances of gambler and casino.

Let us assume that the latest $N$ numbers chosen by a roulette are $%
k_{1},k_{2},...,k_{N}$. We will call this sequence $n$th realisation. We note that some of these numbers may coincide. The probability of $n$th realisation is given by $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{N}P(k_{i})$. We shall assume that there are $j_{n}$ different numbers among the last $N$ numbers. $j_{n}$ varies from 1 to $N$. The probability to have on the $(N+1)$st position one of the numbers $k_{i}$ $(i=1,2,...,N)$ is given by $\sum_{i=1}^{j_{n}}P(%
\overline{k}_{i})$. Here, $\overline{k}_{i}$ denote those $j_{n}$ numbers that are different among $N$ last numbers. Hence, the probability to have first the sequence $k_{1},k_{2},...,k_{N}$ and then one of the numbers $k_{i}$, $(i=1,2,...,N)$ is given by $$\Xi_{n}=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{N}P(k_{i})\sum_{i=1}^{j_{n}}P(\overline{k}_{i}).$$

Now, in order to find the probability of this event, we need to sum $\Xi_{n}$ over all possible sequences. This yields: $$\Xi =\sum_{n}\Xi_{n}.  \label{sum}$$ This sum has $37^{N}$ elements. One can easily find the expected return of the roulette, $\Omega$, as $$\Omega =36\sum_{n}\frac{\Xi _{n}}{j_{n}}-1.$$

# Results and discussions

In order to analyze the chances of a gambler to have an advantage over casino, let us start from the critical spread of the probability distribution $\delta$ which equalises the chances of casino and gambler. It is given by a condition: $$\Omega = 0.$$

An important particular case is the limit of an ideal roulette. In this case $\delta = 0$, $P(k) =1/37$ for all $k$, $\Xi_{n}=\frac{j_{n}}{37^{N+1}}$. Clearly, in this case the casino has an advantage over the gambler as $$\sum_{n}\Xi_{n} = \frac{1}{37^{N}}\sum_{n}\frac{j_{n}}{37} < \frac{1}{37^{N}}%
\sum_{n}\frac{j_{n}}{36}.$$ In this limit, the expected return of the roulette $\Omega_{0}$ is well known: $$\Omega_{0}=\frac{36}{37} - 1 \approx -0.02703.$$

Another limit is of $\delta =\infty$ that corresponds to a zero probability of realisation of all numbers with $k<18$, $P(18)=1/37$ and $P(k>18)=2/37$. In this case the gambler always wins with the adapted method.

In Fig. (c,d), we show the results of Monte-Carlo simulations  of the expected return of the roulette $\Omega(\delta)$ and $%
\Omega(\xi)$, respectively, calculated for different values of $N$. We have used a standard generator of a sequence of uniformly distributed random numbers , and run $10^{6}$ realisations for each point. One can see that starting from $\delta \approx 0.05$ a gambler has an advantage over the casino for a wide range of $N$. This critical value of $\delta$ corresponds to the ratio of probabilities of the realisation of the highest probable and the lowest probable numbers of $\xi_{c}\approx 2.012$.

Fig. (a) is a 3D plot showing $\Omega (N, \xi)$. From the 2D plot of the same function shown in Fig. (b) one can see that, in general, $\Omega$ slightly decreases with the increase of $N$, and a gambler can have an advantage over the casino for a wide range of $N$ if $%
\delta > 0.05$ ($\xi > 2$). Fig. (c) shows $\xi_{c}$ that provides the expected return $\Omega =0$ as a function of $N$.

The dependence of $\Omega$ on $N$ is important and needs further analysis. In Fig. , we show the results of Monte-Carlo simulations of the expected return $\Omega$ as a function of $N$ for different values of the probability spread $\delta$. One can see that for small $\delta$ the expected return does not show any appreciable dependence on $N$, while for larger $\delta$ the expected return slightly decreases with the increase of $%
N$. It looks like the choice of a relatively small $N$ is the best. However, as we will below, small $N$ strategies are more risky in terms of a probability of critical fluctuations that would consume the entire capital of the gambler.

## Linear distribution function

In order to check the robustness of our method, we have also run the simulations for the expected return using a simplest linear probability distribution function: $$P\left( k\right) =\frac{1}{37}\left( 1+\frac{k-18}{18}\beta \right) ,
\label{linear}$$ where $\beta$ is a parameter describing the spread of the probability.

In this case, $$\xi =\frac{P\left( 36\right) }{P\left( 0\right) }=\frac{1+\beta }{1-\beta }.$$

Fig. (a) shows the 3D plot $\Omega (N,\xi)$ calculated using the probability function . Qualitatively, the results of the modeling are similar to those obtained with the Gaussian distribution. Indeed, the spread of probabilities results in bunching of numbers, so that a gambler playing on the last $N$ numbers may have an advantage over casino. The critical value of $\xi$ that corresponds to $\Omega=0$ is close to 2 similarly to the results obtained with the distribution function  . The dependence of $\Omega$ on $N$ is very weak, within the statistical noise produced by our Monte-Carlo simulator.

Finally, note that our analysis can be easily generalised for the case of an American roulette by replacing 37 by 38 in the above formalism. Obviously, the critical value of $\delta$ would be higher for the American roulette as compared to the European roulette.

## Critical initial capital

For the practical implementation of the strategy described here, it is important to know the value of an initial capital that assures successful gambling. We recall that in the case of an ideal roulette that is characterised by a negative $\Omega \approx -0.027$ for any finite starting capital the gambler loses after a sufficiently large number of bets. In our case, $\Omega >0$, and the capital of a gambler normally increases in the course of the game. However, the risk is also present: due to a negative fluctuation (sequence of lost spins) the gambler can lose his/her capital and be put out of a game. What should be the size of the initial capital that ensures the relatively safe game and reduces the risk of catastrophic negative fluctuations? While it is impossible to exclude a catastrophic fluctuation entirely, one can introduce such a characteristic (critical) value of the initial capital $C$. We define $C$ as a capital that allows a gambler to double it during the average number of spins $M$ that elapses between two catastrophic fluctuations. A catastrophic fluctuation is defined as a loss of $C$ in a sequence of unsuccessful spins. We note at this point that for an ideal roulette the critical capital does not exist: the probability to lose any capital is always higher than the probability to double it by at least 1/37. One can easily see that $C$ is linked with $M$ by a simple relation: $$C=M\overline{\jmath }(N)\Omega ,  \label{capital}$$ where $\overline{\jmath }(N)$ is the average value of different numbers among the last $N$ numbers. Now, the frequency of catastrophic fluctuations is given by $$f=\left( \frac{37-\overline{\jmath }(N)(1+\Omega )}{37}\right) ^{S},$$ where $S$ is the number of successive unsuccessful spins needed to lose the capital $C$. As each next unsuccessful spin increases our loss by $\overline{%
\jmath }(N)$, in average, we obtain: $$C=S\overline{\jmath }(N),  \label{capital1}$$

Now, $M$ is linked with the frequency of catastrophic events by $$M=1/f.$$ Expressing $M$ and $S$ in terms of $C$ with use of Eqs.  and , we obtain the transcendental equation for the critical capital:

$$\frac{\overline{\jmath}(N)\Omega}{C}=\left(\frac{37-\overline{\jmath}%
(N)(1+\Omega)}{37}\right)^{C/\overline{\jmath}(N)}.$$ Here, $C$ is expressed in units of bets. To be on a safe side, a gambler should possess a capital exceeding $C$.

Figure shows the dependences of $C$ and corresponding values of $M$ and $S$ on $\Omega$ calculated for different values of the average number of bets per spin $\overline{\jmath}(N)$. One can see that $C$ strongly decreases with the increase of both $\Omega$ and $\overline{\jmath}(N)$. This is important for a gambler who aims at following the safetest strategy, while willing to achieve significant benefits nevertheless. One should keep in mind also that $\Omega$ slightly decreases as a function of $N$, while $%
\overline{\jmath}(N)$ is a monotonically increasing function. Clearly, playing on a larger series of latest numbers $N$ one can strongly reduce the risk of a catastrophic fluctuation. The price to pay is a simultaneous decrease of the expected return. The most convenient range of $N$ is likely to be between 10 and 20 for a sufficiently high $\delta$ ($\delta$ is of the order of $0.1$).

Note also that the avarage number of spins separating two negative fluctuations which lead to the loss of the initial capital, $M$, as well as the number of successive unsucessful spins needed to exhaust this capital, $S$, linearly increase with the increase of $C$, as Figure 5(b,c) shows. Both quantities decrease with the increase of the expected return $\Omega$ and with the increase of the average number of bets per spin $\overline{\jmath}%
(N)$.

## Practical tests

The strategy described here has been tested on three European roulette tables in two different casinos of Southampton (UK) on several different days. We have played $N=12$ in one casino and $N=17$ in another one. In both cases the results were steadily positive with $\Omega \approx 0.1$ independently on croupier. The statistics has been taken over several hundred of spins. For evident reasons, we did not inform administration of the casinos of our experiments, which could have been run without any external bias. The tests have been realised with minimum allowed bets and all the money won in this way were donated to charity.

# Conclusions

To conclude, our analysis shows that certain strategies may result in the positive expected return in the case of a non-ideal roulette. Our method of playing on the last $N$ numbers does not require any preliminary knowledge on "hot" or " cold" numbers, speed of the ball, speed of the wheel etc. The outcome of a long game is only dependent on the value of the probability spread parameters $\delta$ or $\xi$ and on the chosen value of $N$. We show also that while the expected return of a non-ideal roulette shows only a weak dependence on $N$ (it slightly decreases with the increase of $N$), a gambler may significantly reduce the risk of a catastrophic loss if playing on a longer sequence of numbers. In practical terms, we would recommend a gambler to play the strategy described here with any unknown roulette by initially placing only minimum bets for the first 100 or 200 spins (the higher $N$ is chosen the lower number of spins is needed). If the outcome turns out to be steadily positive, it means that, most likely, $\delta$ is above critical. Once all doubts are left behind, the gambler may start placing maximum bets that would bring him a significant benefit. If, when placing minimum bets for 100 or 200 spins the gambler does not see any sign of a steadily positive tendency, the chosen roulette is probably close to ideal, and there is no reason to continue playing on this roulette. We also warn that the positive expected return does not guarantee a gambler against the loss due to a negative fluctuation and advice against irresposible gambling.

ASS acknowledges ITMO Fellowship and Visiting Professorship.


author: J. Isern , E. Garcı́a–Berro L. G. Althaus ; A. H. Córsico
date: 2024-09-30
title: Axions and the pulsation periods of variable white dwarfs revisited

Our aim is to show that variable white dwarfs can provide additional and independent evidence about the existence of axions. The evolution of a white dwarf is a slow cooling process that translates into a secular increase of the pulsation periods of some variable white dwarfs, the so-called DAV and DBV types. Since axions can freely escape from such stars, their existence would increase the cooling rate and, consequently, the rate of change of the periods as compared with the standard ones. The present values of the rate of change of the pulsation period of G117–B15A are compatible with the existence of axions with the masses suggested by the luminosity function of white dwarfs, in contrast with previous estimations. Furthermore, it is shown that if such axions indeed exist, the drift of the periods of pulsation of DBV stars would be noticeably perturbed.

# Introduction

One of the long–standing problems of the standard model of particles is the question of why charge and parity can be violated in weak interactions and not in strong interactions. This is the so-called strong CP problem. One of the possible solutions consists in the introduction of a new symmetry, the Peccei-Quinn symmetry or PQ symmetry, which automatically accounts for the problem (Peccei & Quinn 1977a; 1977b). The spontaneous breaking of this symmetry gives rise to the existence of a new particle called axion, which can couple to photons, electrons and baryons with a strength that depends on their mass and on the specific way in which the PQ symmetry is implemented. The two most popular implementations are the KVSZ model (Kim 1979; Shifman et al. 1980), where the axions couple with photons and hadrons, and the DFSZ model (Dine et al. 1981; Zhitnisky 1980) where they also couple to electrons.

From the first moment that the problem was formulated, a huge effort aimed to directly detect these elusive particles, or at least to constrain their properties using astrophysical and cosmological arguments, was undertaken. Among the experiments looking for a direct detection we mention ADMX and CAST — see Steffen (2009) for a synthetic description. Excellent reviews about the properties of axions and the corresponding astrophysical and cosmological searches can be found in Kim & Carosi (2008), Raffelt (2007; 1996; 1990), Khlopov (1999) and Turner (1990).

White dwarfs represent the final evolutionary stages of low- and intermediate-mass stars. Since they are strongly degenerate and do not have nuclear sources, their evolution is just a gravothermal process of cooling. The simplicity of these objects, the fact that the physical processes necessary to understand them are well identified, although not always well known, and the impressive existing observational background make these stars extremely useful laboratories to test new ideas in physics (Isern & Garcı́a–Berro 2008). In particular, Isern et al. (2008; 2009) found that the best fit to their luminosity function is obtained when axions of the appropriate mass are included in the calculations. We note that in this case only DFSZ axions were taken into account, since electron bremsstrahlung is the dominant process in white dwarf interiors.

The axion emission rate under these conditions is given by (Nakagawa et al 1987; 1988):

$$\dot{\epsilon}_{\rm ax} = 1.08\times 10^{23}\frac{g^2_{\rm aee}}{4\pi}
  \frac{Z^2}{A}T^4_7 F(T,\rho) \,\,\, {\rm erg/g/s},$$

where $F$ takes into account the Coulomb plasma effects, $T_7$ is the temperature in units of $10^7$ K, $Z$ and $A$ are the atomic and mass numbers of the plasma components, respectively, and $g_{\rm aee}$ is the strength of the axion-electron Yukawa coupling, which is not defined by the theory and determines the total axion luminosity of the white dwarf. The value of this parameter that best fits the luminosity function of white dwarfs is $1.1\times 10^{-13}$, but variations of a factor two are still compatible with the observations (Isern et al. 2008; 2009).

Notice that strictly speaking, the shape of the white dwarf luminosity function can be equally well fitted invoking the existence of any hypothetical light boson or axion-like particle able to couple to electrons with a strength $g_{\rm aee} \approx 10^{-13}$. However, since axions have a solid theoretical justification, we will use this term all along the paper. The relationship between this coupling constant and the mass of the axion is given by

$$g_{\rm aee} = 2.8 \times 10^{-14} \frac{m_{\rm ax}\cos^2 \beta}{1\, {\rm meV}},$$

where $\cos^2 \beta$ is an essentially free parameter that probably takes a value ranging from 0.5 to 1 and comes from the ratio of the two Higgs fields that characterize the DFSZ axion models. Therefore, the axion mass necessary to fit the white dwarf luminosity function mass is $m_{\rm  ax}\cos^2  \beta  \sim  4$ meV where, as previously mentioned, variations of $\sim 2$ meV are compatible with the observational uncertainties. For simplicity we will assume $\cos^2 \beta =1$ and will express our results in terms of the mass of the axion, as it is usually done.

Taken at face value, the result of Isern et al. (2009) can be considered as the first indirect proof that axions of the DFSZ type indeed exist. However, before accepting this asseveration some conditions have to be fullfiled: i) Different and independent evolutionary codes must provide the same result, ii) there is no conventional way to account for the presently observed slope of the white dwarf luminosity function, iii) there is no contradiction with other well established astrophysical or cosmological phenomena, and iv) there are some phenomena that are better explained if the axion hypothesis is adopted. Concerning this last point, it is important to realize that the value of the mass of the axion found in Isern et al. (2009) is close to the upper limit obtained from astrophysical constraints. This means that axions with this mass will not dramatically change our current understanding of stellar evolution, but instead some subtle changes that accurate observations could detect and quantify would be apparent. The case of the white dwarf luminosity function is just an example. The drift of the pulsation periods of variable white dwarfs, the topic of this paper, is another one that will be discussed in the following sections. We note however that this is not the case of core collapse supernovae, where axions with this mass can drain an important amount of gravitational energy and modify the process of collapse/explosion. Unfortunately, the nucleon-axion interaction, which is dominant in supernovae, is not well understood and deserves additional work that is out of the scope of this paper. Finally note as well that if $\cos^2 \beta$ was small, the mass of the axion would be higher than the values quoted here and, consequently, the interaction axion-photon would be strengthened. This could be used to rule out our results or to constrain the values that $\cos^2 \beta$ can adopt.

# Results and discussion

During the process of cooling, white dwarfs experience several phases of pulsational instability powered by the $\kappa$-mechanism and the "convective driving" mechanism (Winget & Kepler 2008). Depending on their location in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram and their atmospheric composition they are called pulsating PG1159 or GW Vir stars, which includes stars with a surrounding nebula (the PNNV stars) and stars without nebula (the DOV stars) at $T_{\rm eff} \sim 70,000 -
170,000$ K and He-, C-, and O-dominated atmospheres, DBV or V777 Her stars, with $T_{\rm eff}  \sim 25,000$ K and He-dominated atmospheres, and DAV or ZZ Ceti stars, with $T_{\rm eff}  \sim  12,000$ K and H-dominated atmospheres. All of them display multiperiodic pulsations with periods in the range of 100 to 1000 s, although PNNV stars can pulsate with periods as long as 3000 s. The length of these periods clearly indicates that these objects are experiencing $g$-mode non-radial pulsations, where the main restoring force is gravity — see Winget & Kepler (2008) for a recent review.

One of the main characteristics of $g$-mode pulsations is that they experience a secular drift that can be used to test the white dwarf cooling theory. This secular drift can be approximately described by

$$\frac{d\ln \Pi}{dt} \simeq -a \frac{d\ln T}{dt} + b \frac{d\ln R}{dt},$$

where $a$ and $b$ are constants of the order of unity that depend on the details of the model, and $R$ and $T$ are the stellar radius and the temperature at the region of period formation, respectively (Baglin & Heyvaerts 1969; Winget et al. 1983). This equation reflects the fact that as the star cools down, the degeneracy of the plasma increases, the buoyancy decreases, the Brunt-Väisälä frequency becomes lower and, as a consequence, the spectrum of pulsations gradually shifts to lower frequencies. At the same time, since the star contracts, the radius decreases and the frequency tends to increase. In general, DAV and DBV stars are already so cool that the radial term is negligible and the change of the period of pulsation can be directly related to the change in the core temperature of the star. The timescales involved are of the order of $\sim 10^{-11}$ s/s for DOVs, $\sim 10^{-13}$ to $\sim  10^{-14}$ s/ for DBVs and $\sim  10^{-15}$ to $\sim 10^{-16}$ s/s for DAVs. The measurement of such drifts is a difficult task but, as was proved, it is feasible (Winget & Kepler, 2008).

These properties allow us to build a simple relationship (Isern et al. 1992; Isern & Garcı́a–Berro 2008) to estimate the influence of an extra sink of energy, like axions, on the period drift of variable white dwarfs:

$$\frac{L_{\rm ax}}{L_{\rm model}} \approx \frac{\dot{\Pi}_{\rm obs}}
{\dot{\Pi}_{\rm model}} -1 \approx
\frac{\dot{T}_{\rm obs}}{\dot{T}_{\rm model}} -1 ,
\label{eqf}$$

where the suffix "model" refers to those models built using standard physics.

G117–B15A is a ZZ Ceti star (McGraw & Robinson 1976) with a dominant period of pulsation of $\sim$ 215 s. This star, in an exceptional observational effort, has been observed for more than 30 years to obtain the secular evolution of the pulsation period. Kepler et al. (1991a; 1991b), after $\sim 15$ years of observations, found a secular drift of $\dot{\Pi}_{\rm  obs}  =  (12.0  \pm  3.5)  \times
10^{-15}$ s/s that was more than a factor of two larger than the expected value in the case of a normal carbon-oxygen white dwarf. In order to account for this discrepancy, Isern et al. (1992) proposed the introduction of an extra cooling term due to axions. The mass of the axions necessary to fit this discrepancy was 8.5 meV. Later on, the analysis of additional ten years of observations provided a value of $\dot{\Pi}_{\rm obs}  = (2.3 \pm 1.4) \times  10^{-15}$ s/s (Kepler et al. 2000), closer to the value predicted by the standard theory of evolution of white dwarfs. A detailed seismological analysis (Córsico et al. 2001) found a drift $\dot{\Pi}_{\rm model}  = (3.9
\pm 2.3) \times  10^{-15}$ s/s, where the main sources of uncertainty were due to the mode identification, the mass of the star, the chemical profile and the effective temperature. This value suggested that it was no longer necessary to invoke axions to account for the observed cooling rate of white dwarfs, but at the same time the uncertainties were large enough to prevent ruling out their existence. It is important to realize here that the values obtained with Eq. () agreed well with those obtained from the accurate numerical calculations of Córsico et al. (2001). A new analysis including additional five years of observations gave $\dot{\Pi} = 3.57 \pm 0.82  \times 10^{-15}$ s/s (Kepler et al. 2005), a value that overlaps with the theoretical values obtained by Córsico et al. (2001) and is marginally compatible with the axion luminosity obtained if the axion mass suggested by the luminosity function of white dwarfs, $\sim 4$ meV is adopted. Finally, in a recent release that includes yet another five years of observations, Kepler (2009) obtained $\dot{\Pi} = 4.77  \pm 0.59  \times 10^{-15}$ s/s. Adopting the proper motion correction of Kepler et al. (2005), we obtain $\dot{\Pi} = 4.07  \pm 0.61  \times 10^{-15}$ s/s, a value that is consistent with the existence of the extra cooling term suggested by the luminosity function. Figure displays the evolution of the measured value of $\dot\Pi$ with time. The jumps between the different observational values reflect the introduction of corrections, like the proper motion correction, and the fact that the phase of the periodicity is affected by a jitter caused by low-amplitude modes, contamination by G117–B15B, the companion star, use of different telescopes and apertures…that are not well understood yet (Kepler, private communication).

| Model      | $L_{\rm ax}/ 10^{30}$ (erg/s) | $m_{\rm ax} \cos^2\beta$ (meV) |
|:-----------|:-----------------------------:|:------------------------------:|
| C          |        $0.6 (2.8/0.0)$        |         2.8 (6.0/0.0)          |
| BK (thick) |        $6.8 (8.7/4.9)$        |         9.3 (10.6/7.9)         |
| BK (thin)  |        $2.2 (3.5/1.0)$        |         5.5 ( 6.9/3.7)         |

Axion luminosities and axion masses necessary to account for the observed drift of the period of pulsation of G117–B15A.

Table displays the axion luminosity and mass necessary to fit the observations when several white dwarf pulsational models are adopted (the values in brackets correspond to the observational uncertainties). The values of the first row, labeled model C, were obtained using Eq. (), the model of G117–B15A that best fits the data (Córsico et al. 2001) and the previously mentioned axion emission rates of Nakagawa et al. (1987; 1988). It is important to realize here that in a completely independent analysis, Bischoff-Kim et al. (2008) identified two possible asteroseismological models of G117–B15A, one with a thin hydrogen envelope and the other with a relatively thick hydrogen envelope, with $\dot{\Pi} =  2.98 \pm 0.17  \times 10^{-15}$ s/s and $1.92\pm  0.26 \times  10^{-15}$ s/s, respectively. Both values are smaller than the measured ones and indicate that an additional sink of energy is necessary. Table shows the luminosity and the mass of the axions necessary to account for the most recent data of Kepler (2009) assuming a temperature of the core of $T_{\rm
c}=1.2\times 10^7$ K in both cases.

Recently, Mukadam et al. (2009) analyzed R 548 (ZZ Ceti itself) and found that its mass lies between 0.55 and $0.58\, M_{\sun}$, while the mass of the hydrogen envelope is $\log M_{\rm H}\simeq -5.0$ and that the best prediction for the rate of change of the period is $\dot{\Pi} =(8.3  \pm 0.046) \times  10^{-15}$ s/s. These results are fully consistent with the values obtained for G117–B15A and with those displayed in Table .

The pulsation properties of DBV stars can provide an additional test to the axion hypothesis. Since these stars have a hotter core than that of DA white dwarfs, the neutrino luminosity can no longer be neglected. and the influence of axions on the pulsation period drift is smaller than that expected for DA white dwarfs. For instance, a DB white dwarf of $M \sim 0.59\,  M_{\sun}$, an effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}\sim 25\,200$ K and a core temperature $\log T_{\rm c} =
7.61$ has a luminosity of $L \sim 6.3 \times 10^{-2}\, L_{\sun}$ and a neutrino luminosity $L_\nu \sim  5.1 \times 10^{-2}\,L_{\sun}$. If an axion mass of 5 meV is assumed, the axion luminosity amounts $L_{\rm
  ax} =  6.0 \times 10^{-2}\, L_{\sun}$ and the corresponding secular change of the pulsation period would be

$$\frac{\dot{\Pi}_{\rm ax}}{\dot{\Pi}_{\rm no-ax}}\simeq 1.5 \, .$$

Note that because of the strong dependence of the different luminosities on the core temperature, this prediction is very sensitive to the position in the instability strip and on the particular parameters of the star under study. The only case of DB variable white dwarf that is currently being studied is EC20058–5234 (Sullivan 2009), but unfortunately a rate of period change is not yet available for this star.

# Conclusions

It has been shown that white dwarf variable G117–B15As present value of the secular rate of change of the period of pulsation, $4.07  \pm 0.61 \times  10^{-15}$ s/s (Kepler 2009), is consistent with the predictions of the theoretical models, as was anticipated by Isern et al. (1992), if an additional source of cooling like axion emission is included. This result is corroborated by the completely independent analysis of the same star done by Bischoff-Kim et al. (2008), using the measured rate of period change ($3.57 \pm 0.82 \times
10^{-15}$ s/s) obtained previously (Kepler et al. 2005). This means that the conclusion of Córsico et al. (2001) that it was unnecessary to introduce an additional cooling source is no longer valid when the new observational data are taken into account. This is an important result, as asteroseismological observations of white dwarfs seem to give additional and independent support to the claim of Isern et al. (2008; 2009) that the white dwarf luminosity function is better fitted if an additional cooling provided by axions with a mass of a few meV is included in the calculations.

It has also been shown that since the core temperatures of DBV stars are higher, the secular drift of the pulsation period of these stars is strongly enhanced by the axion emission. In particular, if axion emmisivity is computed using the mass obtained from the best fit to the luminosity function of white dwarfs and included in the calculations, the secular rate of period change increases by $\sim
50\%$, although the exact value depends on the core temperature and, consequently, on their position in the DB variability strip.

Finally, it is worthwhile to emphasize the importance of continued obervations of G117–B15A and R 548. It is also important to enlarge the number of stars with observed period drifts and the measurement of these drifts in hotter variables like DBV white dwarfs. Finally, it is also important to improve the asteroseismological models. All these actions would undoubtely contribute to solve the problem of axions.