author:
UGent, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Krijgslaan 281 S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
E-mail: ; J. Ignacio Cirac
Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Str. 1, Garching, D-85748, Germany; Tobias J. Osborne
Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Berlin D-14193, Germany
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Institut für Theoretische Physik, Appelstr. 2, D-30167 Hannover, Germany; Henri Verschelde
UGent, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Krijgslaan 281 S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium; Frank Verstraete
University of Vienna, Faculty of Physics, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria
title: Applying the variational principle to $(1+1)$ dimensional relativistic quantum field theories

# Introduction: Feynman's arguments against the variational principle

The variational principle asserts that for any state $\ket{\Psi}$ in the Hilbert space $\mathbb{H}$ of a system with Hamiltonian $\ensuremath{\hat{H}}$ one finds an energy expectation value that exceeds the ground state energy, *i.e.* $$E_{0} \leq \frac{\braket{\Psi|\ensuremath{\hat{H}}|\Psi}}{\braket{\Psi|\Psi}},$$ with $E_{0}$ the ground-state energy (lowest eigenvalue) of $\ensuremath{\hat{H}}$. If we have a class of variational ansatz states $\ket{\Psi(z)}$ which are parameterized by a set of parameters $z$, we can try to find a good approximation of the ground state of $\ensuremath{\hat{H}}$ within this variational class by finding the parameters $z^{\ast}$ that minimize the energy expectation value. The variational method is the basis for a tremendous number of highly successful calculational tools in many-body physics. Examples include density functional theory , Wilson's numerical renormalisation group and the density matrix renormalisation group (DMRG) . When applicable, the variational method offers some powerful advantages over alternative approaches. It is free of any sign problem that hinders the application of Monte-Carlo sampling to many interesting problems, and it is perfectly able to reproduce non-perturbative effects and thus easily outperforms perturbation theory.

In quantum field theory (QFT), however, the variational principle has not met with the same success as in other areas of many-body physics. The core reasons for this were identified by Feynman in one of his last lectures . Feynman pointed out three conceptual issues standing in the way of a successful application of the variational principle in (relativistic) QFTs. Feynman phrased his first argument as the "sensitivity to high frequencies". This sensitivity is intrinsic to the variational method and its attempt to find the "lowest" ground-state energy. While this problem occurs in any system containing a large range of interacting energy scales, it is truly catastrophic in relativistic field theories. To lowest order, the ground state of a QFT contains the zero-point fluctuations from all energy scales and the corresponding ground-state energy is thus dominated by the contribution of the high frequencies. In relativistic theories, these UV frequency modes are infinitely abundant and create a divergence in the ground state energy (density), which already signals a difficulty that the variational principle will face. Any variational approach exploits all variational parameters $z$ to obtain the best possible description of the UV degrees of freedom and doesn't care about the relatively tiny energy penalty resulting from having an ill-described low frequency behavior. Since quantities of physical interest are related to the low-frequency modes, they will typically be very badly approximated when using the variationally optimized state $\ket{\Psi(z^{\ast})}$. Whenever the variational parameters affect both the low and high frequencies — unavoidable in interacting theories but also true when a real space approach is applied to free theories — this argument can lead to the paradoxical situation where the addition of variational parameters provides a *worse* approximation to physical quantities.

Feynman's second and third arguments concern the lack of suitable variational ansatz states allowing high-accuracy computations of observable quantities, rather than an inherent problem of the variational method. As a second argument, Feynman remarks that a suitable ansatz for an extended quantum field theory should be extensive, *i.e.* the energy expection value of the Hamiltonian with respect to a trial state $\ket{\Psi}$ should be proportional to the volume $V$ of the system. Preferably, we would like to work in the thermodynamic limit $V\to\infty$. For compact systems, one can easily construct a set of variational ansatz states by taking the span of the ground state and a few of the excited states of a nearby free Hamiltonian that can be diagonalized exactly. For extended systems, this approach will fail because the excited states will not be extensive and can thus not contribute to the energy expectation value. We thus end up trying to apply the variational method by using the ground state of a free theory — a *Gaussian* state — as variational ansatz, which is equivalent to mean field theory. If we do try to devise wave functionals which are extensive and non-Gaussian, we meet Feynman's third objection: we still have to compute functional integrals in order to calculate the energy expectation value. This is as difficult as calculating the path integral describing the QFT, but in one dimension less, since time does not appear in the Hamiltonian framework. For non-Gaussian states, Feynman believed that it is impossible to accurately calculate expectation values, as he considered perturbation theory the only means possible to compute these integrals. The resulting errors have a strong influence on the optimal state $\ket{\Psi(z^\ast)}$ obtained by applying the variational method and thus on observable quantities derived from it.

While some progress into non-Gaussian variational methods for relativistic QFTs and gauge theories have been developed since Feynman's original lecture , we hope that we can contribute with a new approach.

# A new variational ansatz: continuous matrix product states

Feynman's second and third arguments are not restricted to relativistic theories, and should thus be equally valid for all extended QFTs and even quantum lattice systems. His statement follows from his sole consideration of perturbation theory as the only possible method to calculate expectation values of non-Gaussian states and expresses a "lack of imagination". Since 1988 we have witnessed a stream of results and variational ansatzes for low-dimensional quantum lattice systems. The most striking development was the introduction of the DMRG , which is — in retrospect — a variational method within the class of *matrix product states* (MPS) . The basis of the success of the DMRG is the fact that MPS correctly capture the amount of *quantum entanglement* in gapped one-dimensional lattice systems. A better understanding of the behavior of entanglement in ground states of short-ranged Hamiltonians — namely the fact that the entanglement entropy of a region scales as the boundary of that region, with at most logarithmic violations for critical systems — has led to the conclusion that ground states of such Hamiltonians live in a very small corner of the Hilbert space. This insight was crucial in the development of new variational wave functions for strongly-interacting quantum systems that live precisely in this corner and have the required scaling of entanglement entropy. The natural generalization of MPS to systems satisfying an area law in higher dimensions are the projected entangled pair states (PEPS), whereas the logarithmic violations of the boundary law in $(1+1)$ dimensional critical systems can be captured by the multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA) . These wave functions go well beyond Gaussian trial states and allow the accurate and efficient calculation of observable quantities. Thus Feynman's objections can already be regarded as having been addressed, in the case where MPS are applied to relativistic QFTs in conjunction with a lattice regulator .

These developments have culminated with the introduction of a new variational wave functional for $(1+1)$-dimensional QFTs: the *continuous matrix product state* (cMPS) . They are obtained as the continuum limit of a certain subclass of MPS and provide a variational class of non-Gaussian wave functionals directly for quantum fields, removing the need for a lattice regulator. Compelling evidence that cMPS provide a powerful description of the quantum fluctuations of quantum fields has been presented in . So far, cMPS have been restricted to the approximation of ground states of non-relativistic theories. In this presentation we argue that we can apply the cMPS wave functional to relativistic QFTs and illustrate how to overcome Feynman's first argument, which is inextricably connected with any attempt to apply the variational approach to relativistic QFTs. As for all variational approaches, we work in the Hamiltonian framework and explicitly specify the ground state wave functional. While this is not a common approach to tackle relativistic QFTs, the Schrödinger formalism for relativistic QFTs is well-established (see and references therein).

A final remark is in order before introducing the cMPS ansatz. In his closing remarks, Feynman speculated how best to overcome his second reservation and predicted that it should be possible to describe a global field state using a reduced set of local parameters. Feynman foresaw the role of the *density matrix* in such a description. It turns out that the *density matrix* in DMRG has precisely the properties envisaged by Feynman: it yields a local parameterization of the global properties of a state which is living on the boundary of the region of interest. CMPS inherit this as they possess a key *holographic property*: they are parameterized by the (non-equilibrium) dynamics of an auxiliary system — which we could call a *boundary field theory* — of one lower geometric dimension . For $(1+1)$ dimensional QFTs, the auxiliary system is zero-dimensional (the Hilbert space of the auxiliary system can even be chosen to be finite dimensional) and is thus exactly solvable. While this is no longer true in higher-dimensional generalizations, we foresee that approximations similar to those used in the contraction of PEPSs will still allow for an accurate calculation of expectation values.

While Feynman's arguments are valid both for bosonic and fermionic theories, we focus on fermionic theories as these are naturally formulated in terms of creation and annihilation operators, which is compatible with the cMPS formalism. We can define the fermionic cMPS class as: $$\ket{\Psi}=\mathrm{Tr}_\text{aux} \left[\mathcal{P}\mathrm{e}^{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\mathrm{d}x\,Q\otimes  \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}+ \sum_\alpha R_\alpha\otimes \hat{\psi}_ \alpha ^\dagger(x)}\right]\ket{\Omega},\label{eq:ansatz}\vspace{-2ex}$$ where $\hat{\psi}_\alpha^\dagger(x)$ are field operators creating fermions of type $\alpha$ at position $x$ with anticommutation relations $\{\psi^\dagger_\alpha(x),\psi^\dagger_\beta(y)\}=0$ and $\{\psi^\dagger_\alpha(x),\psi_\beta(y)\}=\delta_{\alpha,\beta}\delta(x-y)$, $Q$ and $R_\alpha$ are $D\times D$ matrices acting on the auxiliary system, $\mathrm{Tr}_\text{aux}$ denotes a partial trace over the auxiliary system, and $\mathcal{P}\mathrm{e}$ denotes the path ordered exponential. The matrices $Q$ and $R_{\alpha}$ contain the variational parameters and can be position dependent, but we focus on a translational-invariant setting where they are not. A derivation of the required algorithmic rules for calculating expectation values of cMPS can be found in and we only highlight differences resulting from the anticommutation relations of the fermionic field operators. In the relativistic scenario, the two field operators $\hat{\psi}_\alpha^\dagger$ ($\alpha=1,2$) represent the two components of the Dirac spinor. The state $\ket{\Psi}$ approximates the ground state of a relativistic QFT by acting with the field creation operators on the state $\ket{\Omega}$, for which all levels are empty ($\hat{\psi}_\alpha \ket{\Omega}=0$). For free Dirac fermions, the path-ordered exponential should thus fill the Dirac sea.

# A natural cutoff

Let's now describe the physical properties of the fermionic cMPS variational class. It is a non-Gaussian class that is both extensive — note the action of the creation operator inside the exponential — and allows the exact evaluation of the expectation values of local operators; *e.g.* we obtain (we henceforth use the summation convention on repeated indices): $$-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\braket{\chi|\hat{\psi}^\dagger \alpha^{x} \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}}{\mathrm{d}x}(x)|\chi}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\braket{\chi| \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger}}{\mathrm{d}x}(x)\alpha^{x}\hat{\psi}(x)|\chi}  = \textrm{Im} [\sigma^y_{\alpha\beta}\bra{l} [Q, R_\alpha]_-\otimes \overline{R}_\beta\ket{r}],$$ for the kinetic energy density, where, in order to obtain real coefficients, we have chosen the convention $\alpha^x=\sigma^y$ and $\beta=\sigma^z$ for the Dirac matrices. The $D^2$ component vectors $\bra{l}$ and $\ket{r}$ are, respectively, the left- and right-eigenvectors of the *transfer matrix* $T=Q\otimes \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}+ \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}\otimes \overline{Q} + R_\alpha \otimes \overline{R}_\alpha$, corresponding to eigenvalue zero . We focus on the kinetic energy density as it is the dominant term in the UV region, which is the region responsible for divergences and for Feynman's first criticism. As long as the $D\times D$ matrices $Q$ and $R_\alpha$ have finite entries this expression will be finite and is thus regularized.

A better understanding of this regularization is gained by looking at the momentum occupation in a cMPS: $\braket{\chi|\hat{\psi}^\dagger_\alpha(k)\hat{\psi}_\beta(k^\prime)|\chi}=\delta(k-k^\prime) n_{\alpha,\beta}(k)$ . The momentum occupation number $n_{\alpha,\beta}(k)$ is the Fourier transform of $C_{\alpha\beta}(x)$, where $$C_{\alpha,\beta}(x)=\theta(-x)\braket{l| (\ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}\otimes \overline{R}_\alpha) \mathrm{e}^{x\widetilde{T} }(R_\beta\otimes \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1})|r}+\theta(x)\braket{l|  (R_\beta\otimes \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1})\mathrm{e}^{x\widetilde{T}}(\ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}\otimes \overline{R}_\alpha)|r}\label{eq:correlator}$$ and $\theta(x)$ the Heaviside function and $\widetilde{T}=Q\otimes \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}+ \ensuremath{\, 1\hspace{-1ex}1}\otimes \overline{Q} - R_\alpha \otimes \overline{R}_\alpha$, where the last minus sign originates from the Fermi statistics of the particles. There will not be any disconnected contribution, as we require $\braket{\chi |\hat{\psi}_\alpha|\chi}=0$. The behavior of $n_{\alpha,\beta}(k)$ for large $k$ is determined by the continuity and differentiability of $C_{\alpha,\beta}$, in particular around $x=0$, which is the only point where differentiability of the expression above is not trivially guaranteed. Since $C_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ is a continuous function, its Fourier transform decays as $n_{\alpha\beta}(k) \leq \mathcal{O}(k^{-2})$ for $|k| \to \infty$. Continuity of the derivative of $C_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ at $x=0$ requires $\braket{l|\left\{R_\beta,R_\gamma\right\}\otimes \left\{\overline{R}_\alpha,\overline{R}_\gamma\right\} |r}=0$ ($\forall \alpha, \beta$), which is satisfied by choosing all matrices $R_\alpha$ nilpotent and anticommuting. The second derivative of $C_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ at $x=0$ is then automatically continuous, from which one can conclude that $n_{\alpha,\beta}(k) \leq \mathcal{O}(k^{-4})$ for $|k| \to \infty$. While a faster decrease of the momentum occupation number imposes additional constraints on the matrices $Q$ and $R_\alpha$ the current behavior already ensures a finite kinetic energy. The region in momentum space where the $k^{-4}$ decay behavior sets in defines a soft momentum cutoff $\Lambda$.

# Curing the sensitivity to high frequencies

We can now investigate how Feynman's first objection manifests itself for the cMPS ansatz. The problem is situated in a cMPS's ability to describe a scale transformation $x\mapsto cx$ ($c>0$) by an equivalent transformation $Q' = cQ$ and $R_\alpha' = \sqrt{c}R_\alpha$. Since this transformation does not change $\bra{l}$ and $\ket{r}$, the kinetic energy per unit length will simply be multiplied by a factor $c^2$. In renormalizable theories, the kinetic energy has the highest scaling dimension, together with other terms with dimensionless coupling constants. These are thus the dominant terms in the UV region. However, in contrast to the non-relativistic case, the relativistic kinetic energy is not a positive definite operator and can acquire a negative expectation value. If $|\chi\rangle$ is a cMPS for which the sum of terms with highest scaling dimension has a negative energy expectation value, then the total ground state energy can always be decreased by a scale transformation with $c$ sufficiently large. Our variational method will thus try to push $c\to \infty$, in order to approximate the divergent (kinetic) energy of the exact solution. Under such a transformation, the momentum occupation changes to $n^\prime_{\alpha,\beta}(k)=n_{\alpha,\beta}(k/c)$ and the intrinsic cutoff determined by $n^\prime$ is given by $\Lambda^\prime=c\Lambda$.

This change of scale will be accompanied by a worse description of the low frequency region, as predicted by Feynman. The precise underlying cause for this effect in our variational class is that a cMPS can only accurately describe states with a finite amount of entanglement. The maximal entanglement entropy in a one-dimensional system with energy gap $\Delta$ and energy cutoff $\Lambda$ will roughly be given by $S\sim \log(\Lambda/\Delta)$, and a cMPS with $D$ proportional to $\mathcal{O}(\exp(S))$ should suffice to provide a good description . If $D$ is too low to obtain a good approximation of the exact ground state, the variational method will make compromises in that part of the frequency spectrum that contributes least to the ground state energy, *i.e.* the low-frequency region. In non-relativistic systems, the cutoff is set by the particle density or thus by the chemical potential. But in a relativistic Hamiltonian, there is no physical cutoff and we only have the intrinsic momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ of the cMPS. If we start from a cMPS with negative energy expectation value, the variational method can quickly lower the energy by shifting the cutoff to $\Lambda'=c\Lambda$ with $c \to \infty$. As $c$ goes to infinity, all low-energy modes will eventually fall into the region that is poorly described and the description of any observable quantity will be completely wrong for every finite value of the bond dimension $D$. This is schematically illustrated in Fig. .

A solution is now straightforward as we can prevent $c$ from running to infinity by imposing a constraint on the matrices $Q$ and $R_\alpha$: since $Q$ has the dimension of momentum and $R_\alpha$ has the dimension of the square root of a momentum, constraining the *norm* of $Q$ and $R_\alpha$ prevents $c$ from running and regularizes the resulting theory by introducing a scale, i.e. a dimensionful parameter, into the system, similar to what happens in analytical regularization techniques or lattice regularization. In the sequel, we will constrain the norm of the commutator $[Q,R_\alpha]$ by fixing the expectation value of $(\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}^\dagger/\mathrm{d} x) (\mathrm{d} \hat{\psi}/\mathrm{d} x)$ . Hereto, we add this term to the Hamiltonian with a Lagrange multiplier $1/\Lambda$, *i.e.* $\hat{H}_\text{cutoff}=\Lambda^{-1} \int\mathrm{d} x\, (\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}^\dagger/\mathrm{d} x) (\mathrm{d} \hat{\psi}/\mathrm{d} x)$. This apparently arbitrary choice is motivated by the requirement that the constraint needs to penalize high values of the momentum $k$, to which $[Q,R_\alpha]$ is related by the calculational rules of cMPS. $H_\text{cutoff}$ will give a $k^2$ contribution in momentum space, which is low enough to ensure a finite result in combination with a momentum occupation that decays as $k^{-4}$. It is, however, strong enough to penalize high frequency modes, even the ones that give a contribution $-|k|$ to the (kinetic) energy. Put differently, it is a positive definite term with a higher scaling dimension than the relativistic kinetic energy. As such, it is non-renormalizable, which by means of the renormalization group indicates that it will be irrelevant for the description of the low-frequency modes and cannot strongly influence the expectation value of observable quantities. Note that it does respect the chiral symmetry of the kinetic energy term. It does of course break relativistic invariance, which is inevitable when introducing a momentum cutoff in a Hamiltonian framework. We expect that any other norm constraint with similar properties and respecting the symmetries of the system should also work.

# Application 1: free Dirac fermions

```latex
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{dirac.pdf}
\caption{Momentum occupation of the antiparticle levels $n^{--}(k)$, the particle levels $n^{++}(k)$ and the mixing $|n^{+-}(k)|$ in a cMPS approximation of the Dirac field with mass $m$. The auxiliary space of the cMPS is $\mathbb{C}^2\otimes \mathbb{C}^2\otimes \mathbb{C}^D$. The vertical line indicates the position of the exact cutoff.\label{fig:dirac}}
\end{wrapfigure}
```

We now illustrate our arguments by applying them to relativistic fermion models. As a benchmark, we first consider free Dirac fermions with Hamiltonian density $$\begin{split}
\hat{h}_{D} =& -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2} \hat{\psi}^\dagger(x) \sigma^y \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}}{\mathrm{d} x}(x) + \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2} \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}^\dagger}{\mathrm{d} x}(x) \sigma^y \hat{\psi}(x)\\
&+ m \hat{\psi}^\dagger(x) \sigma^z \hat{\psi}(x),
\end{split}$$ with Dirac matrices chosen as described above, and $m$ the fermion mass. In the exact ground state of $\hat{H}_{D}+\hat{H}_\text{cutoff}$, this term will actually introduce a sharp cutoff at $k_\text{cutoff}=\Lambda (1/2 + (1/4+m^2/\Lambda^2)^{1/2})^{1/2}$, which is equal to $\Lambda$ up to corrections of $\mathcal{O}(m^2/\Lambda^2)$. The cMPS ansatz will not be able to reproduce this sharp cutoff because it decays as $k^{-4}$. Indeed, this cutoff is not expected to be reproduced very well, because the new hamiltonian is gapless at $k=\pm k_\text{cutoff}$. However, this is not a problem, as we do not expect these high-frequency modes to influence physical properties. Note that both zeros in the dispersion relation occur at physically different momenta and do thus not result in fermion doubling.

Since we do not aim at reproducing the exact solution in the high-frequency regime, we can not compare the corresponding energy as a measure of the accuracy of our solution. Instead, we have calculated the momentum occupation of the exact positive (particle) and negative (antiparticle) levels according to the definitions $\braket{\ensuremath{\hat{a}}^\dagger(k) \ensuremath{\hat{a}}(k^\prime)}=\delta(k^\prime-k) n^{++}(k)$, $\braket{\ensuremath{\hat{b}}^\dagger(k) \ensuremath{\hat{b}}(k^\prime)}=\delta(k^\prime-k) n^{--}(k)$, $\braket{\ensuremath{\hat{a}}^\dagger(k) \ensuremath{\hat{b}}(k^\prime)}=\delta(k^\prime-k) n^{+-}(k)$, with $\ensuremath{\hat{a}}$ ($\ensuremath{\hat{b}}$) the annihilator (creator) of particles (antiparticles). The results corresponding to the optimal cMPS are shown in Fig. . The exact solution has the Dirac sea filled ($n^{--}(k)=1$) all the way up to $k_\text{cutoff}$, after which $n^{--}(k)=0$ for $|k|>k_\text{cutoff}$, and $n^{++}(k)=n^{+-}(k)=0$, $\forall k$. These results were obtained using the cMPS ansatz where $Q$ and $R_\alpha$ act on an auxiliary Hilbert space $\mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes \mathbb{C}^{2}\otimes \mathbb{C}^D$, where the first two two-dimensional Hilbert spaces accommodate auxiliary fermions which are used to impose the anticommutation relations on $R_\alpha$. It is clear from these results that the low-energy behavior is approximated very well for the massive Dirac theory, and the accuracy greatly increases by increasing $D$. As anticipated, the cutoff behavior is approximated less well. In the case $m=0$ the theory is critical and the low-energy behavior is also approximated less well. This result is familiar from MPS solutions for gapless lattice models. However, from the fact that $|n^{+-}|\approx 0$ for $m=0$, we see that the algorithm automatically converges to a cMPS respecting chiral symmetry, except at $D=2$.

```latex
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{casimirsingle.pdf}
\caption{Energy density $e$ for Dirac fermions with $m/\Lambda=1/10$ in a system where `plates' are present at position $x=0$ and $x=50/\Lambda$. These plates enforce the bag-model boundary conditions. The ground state energy density $e_0$ in the infinite vacuum is plotted for comparison.\label{fig:casimirsingle}}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{1ex}

\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{casimirtotal.pdf}
\caption{The total Casimir energy as a function of the distance $L$ between the `plates'. For $m=0$, the exact Casimir energy, both in our model with cutoff, and analytically through zeta function regularization, is also displayed. \label{fig:casimirtotal}}
\end{minipage}
\end{wrapfigure}
```

To give a non-trivial example of what can be done with our approach we have also calculated the Casimir energy of the massive Dirac field. We simply recycle the matrices $Q$ and $R_\alpha$ from the simulation above, and add suitable operators $B(x)$ to the ansatz at the location of the 'plates' or defects ($x=0$ and $x=L$), which impose the correct boundary conditions. The boundary conditions will only fix a part of these operators, the remaining elements can be used to optimize the energy with fixed $Q$ and $R_\alpha$. All boundary effects can be incorporated in the boundary operators $B$. We used the typical bag-model boundary conditions . In Fig.  we show the energy density for a particular configuration of 'plates' in the $(1+1)$ dimensional free-fermion model. A clear manifestation of the Fermi surface at a finite momentum $k_\text{cutoff}$ is present in the form of Friedel oscillations. The Casimir energy $E_C$ as a function of the distance $L$ between the plates is plotted in Fig. . The presence of the momentum cutoff, and thus of the finite particle density, also introduces a strong oscillatory behavior in $E_C(L)$, which was already observed in studies of the interaction energy between defects in one-dimensional quantum liquids . Local minima correspond to values of $L$ where the number of allowed modes is such that the density of fermions between the plates is exactly equal to the density of fermions outside the plates. The sharp maxima appear when this condition is most strongly violated. In the limit $k_\text{cutoff}\to \infty$, the density of fermions is infinite, both in between and outside the plates, and the equal density condition is always satisfied. So the physical Casimir energy, which is expected to be cutoff independent, can be found by the envelope of the local minima. This is illustrated for the $m=0$ case, where the exact solution in our model is compared to the value of the Casimir energy for massless Dirac fermions in $(1+1)$ dimensions, as calculated with zeta-function regularization, i.e. $E_\text{C}(L)=-\frac{\pi}{12 L}$. Note that the Casimir energy will always have an asymptotic exponential decay in cMPS calculations, but that it can be well approximated at intermediate values of $L$.

Because the Casimir energy is a *difference* of energies approximate results can be lower than the exact solutions. This is clearly the case in Fig. . We attribute this effect to the fact that the additional degrees of freedom present in the boundary vectors allow one to further optimize the energy in their immediate vicinity. The qualitative behavior of the energy is already reproduced by this simple approach.

# Application 2: the Gross-Neveu model

As a final proof of principle, we study a theory with interactions. One of the most important models for one-dimensional relativistic fermions is the Gross-Neveu model, as it shares many features with QCD , including, asymptotic freedom and spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry. The hamiltonian density for the $N$-flavor Gross-Neveu model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{h}_{GN} = -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2} \hat{\psi}^\dagger_a \sigma^y \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}_a}{\mathrm{d} x} + \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2} \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\psi}^\dagger_{a}}{\mathrm{d} x}(x) \sigma^y \hat{\psi}_{a}(x)- \frac{g^2}{2}: (\hat{\psi}_a^\dag \sigma^z \hat{\psi}_a)^2 :,
\end{aligned}$$ where the $x$-dependence of the field operators has been omitted for brevity and there is an implied summation over the flavor index $a=1, 2, \ldots, N$. One must not forget to apply normal ordering when deriving an interacting Hamiltonian from the relativistic path integral, which is a coherent-state path integral for fermionic theories. As a variational ansatz we employ a product state of cMPS states across the different fermion flavors. Because the exact ground state has $\mathcal{S}_N$ flavor symmetry (and actually $\mathrm{O}(2N)$ symmetry), the nearest product state should also be invariant under $\mathcal{S}_N$ . We can thus use the same cMPS for every flavor. This amounts to a Hartree-Fock approximation of the theory, where the self-interaction of the flavor is treated exactly, and the self-consistent mean-field approach is only applied to the interactions between different flavors. We add the same cutoff term $\ensuremath{\hat{H}}_{\text{cutoff}}$ to the Hamiltonian for every fermion flavor, so as to respect the flavor symmetry. Since this term introduces our regularization parameter $\Lambda$, we know that the coupling constant $g$ will have to depend on $\Lambda$ in order to have a consistent theory. In the $N\to \infty$ limit, we can solve this problem exactly, and we obtain the well-known result for $\sigma = \braket{\chi|\hat{\psi}^\dagger \sigma^z \hat{\psi} | \chi}$ $$\frac{\pi}{\lambda}=\int_0^{k_\text{cutoff}}\frac{\mathrm{d} k}{\sqrt{\lambda^2 \sigma^2+k^2}}\quad \Rightarrow \quad |\lambda\sigma| \approx 2 \Lambda \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\pi}{\lambda(\Lambda)}}\label{grossneveuresult}$$ where $k_\text{cutoff}\approx \Lambda$ if $|\lambda\sigma| \ll \Lambda$. This indicates that the cutoff fixing term $\hat{H}_\text{cutoff}$ has no effect other then what it is meant to do, i.e. introducing a cutoff. With the current Hartree-Fock ansatz based on cMPS, we can calculate an approximation for any $\lambda$ and $N$. In principle, we can describe the complete wave function of all $N$ flavors with a single cMPS, but this is computationally more demanding as the dimension of the auxiliary space needs to grow exponentially with the number of flavors. Numerical results with the mean-field approach are illustrated in Fig. . At strong coupling ($\lambda>1$) they agree very well with the exact result. The discrepancies between the exact solution and the cMPS approximation for $N=\infty$ are clearly finite-$D$ effects. They become more pronounced as $\lambda \sigma/\Lambda$ gets smaller, since $\lambda\sigma$ is exactly equal to the mass gap in the $N=\infty$ limit.

# Conclusion

We have developed an extension of the cMPS variational class appropriate for fermionic -dimensional relativistic field theories. Since cMPS have a built-in cutoff, they offer a new way to regularize quantum field theories. We have explained how to ensure that cMPS do not suffer from Feynman's objections concerning the application of the variational principle. Additionally, our approach is free from fermion doubling and sign problems. We have demonstrated the applicability of our variational approach by reproducing the known results for free Dirac fermions and provided two nontrivial applications of our method to the Gross-Neveu model, where we observe chiral symmetry breaking and absolute scaling of the chiral parameter, and the Casimir effect, where we are able to reproduce the qualitative features of the Casimir energy.

# Acknowledgements

J.H. and H.V. would like to thank the hospitality of R. Bertlmann and F.V. at the University of Vienna. T.J.O. is grateful to J. Eisert for helpful conversations. Work suported by Research Foundation Flanders (JH), SFB projects, FoQuS and ViCoM, EU projects Quevadis, ERC grant QUERG and DFG-FG635.


abstract: The scalability and complexity of deep learning models remains a key issue in many of visual recognition applications like, e.g., video surveillance, where fine tuning with labeled image data from each new camera is required to reduce the domain shift between videos captured from the source domain, e.g., a laboratory setting, and the target domain, i.e, an operational environment. In many video surveillance applications, like face recognition (FR) and person re-identification, a pair-wise matcher is used to assign a query image captured using a video camera to the corresponding reference images in a gallery. The different configurations and operational conditions of video cameras can introduce significant shifts in the pair-wise distance distributions, resulting in degraded recognition performance for new cameras. In this paper, a new deep domain adaptation (DA) method is proposed to adapt the CNN embedding of a Siamese network using unlabeled tracklets captured with a new video cameras. To this end, a dual-triplet loss is introduced for metric learning, where two triplets are constructed using video data from a source camera, and a new target camera. In order to constitute the dual triplets, a mutual-supervised learning approach is introduced where the source camera acts as a teacher, providing the target camera with an initial embedding. Then, the student relies on the teacher to iteratively label the positive and negative pairs collected during, e.g., initial camera calibration. Both source and target embeddings continue to simultaneously learn such that their pair-wise distance distributions become aligned. For validation, the proposed metric learning technique is used to train deep Siamese networks under different training scenarios, and is compared to state-of-the-art techniques for still-to-video FR on the COX-S2V and a private video-based FR dataset. Results indicate that the proposed method can provide a level of accuracy that is comparable to the upper bound performance, in training scenario where labeled target data is employed to fine-tune the Siamese network.
author:
;
title: Dual-Triplet Metric Learning for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation in Video-Based Face Recognition

# Introduction

Learning discriminant representations from face images and efficiently calibrating these embedding to new capturing devices and operational environments is required for a wide range of biometric and surveillance applications such as, face recognition (FR) in surveillance systems, character identification and clustering for video captioning, web search, etc. Representation learning methods from still face images are extensively studied where availability of extremely large datasets of still images facilitates deep learning methods and achieve human-level performance like in the current FR systems .

Learning video-based face representations, on the other hand, are harder to learn for two main reasons. First, face images are extracted from videos with unconstrained capturing conditions and that can introduce significant variability in facial appearances according to pose, illumination, scale, expression, etc. Second, the publicly available video-based face datasets are of much less size, compared to the still face datasets, so it can be insufficient to train reliable deep representations. For instance, large-scale labeled video database publicly available to date, such as YouTube face dataset , contains 3.4K videos in total from 1.5K different subjects, as apposed to the still VGG face2 dataset with 3.3M faces from 9K subjects .

One way to tackle the above challenges is to reduce the variability in the video-based face images, so they become similar to the still images, and hence, the powerful still-based face representations become usable. For instance, autoencoder networks are used to learn discriminant face embedding, and to reconstruct high-quality images (frontal, well-illuminated, less blurred faces with neutral expression) from video face images captured under various conditions . Such methods may require enough data from the target domain and can be impractical to calibrate new video sources using low-shot calibration data.

Another way to tackle the video-based face representation learning challenge is to generate enough video-based data from the large still data (by adding effects to the still images similar to these produced by the video capturing conditions) and then use the generated data to design new representations for the video-based face applications. For instance, artificially blur training data are generated to account for a shortfall in real-world video training data. Using training data composed of both still images and artificially blurred data, a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is encouraged to learn blur insensitive features automatically . Domain-Specific Face Synthesis methods are proposed where the domain specific variations, e.g., pose, illumination, etc., are projected onto the reference still of each individual, so that they resemble individuals of interest under the capture conditions relevant to the operational domain . Such methods can be too complex to calibrate new video sources efficiently and may not cover the complete range of capturing conditions that can occur during operation.

Recently, the video-based face representation learning is approached from the Domain Adaptation (DA) perspective, where images from specific environment and capturing conditions (mostly high quality still images) are considered as the source data and face images captured from a different environment and capturing conditions (mostly video-based images) are considered as the target data. Some methods used large labeled data from target domain to fine tune an initial source model . More practical methods employed Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) to transfer the discriminant source model to the target data using unlabeled target data . These methods fit more the classical "single stream" networks and they are not designed specifically for the multiple-stream networks, e.g., the Siamese structure, that is employed for designing pair-wise face matchers, e.g., in Still to Video (S2V) face recognition, based on deep metric learning.

Some works on UDA for deep distance metric learning were recently proposed . These method are either not applicable to face representation learning since they are designed for closed- and small-set problems, such as handwritten digit recognition , or they apply mixture of techniques to support more complex applications, but this comes with the expense of complexity that might hinder practical applications such as, automatic calibration of surveillance cameras . More recently, self-supervised Learning approaches are proposed to automatically label target data by leveraging temporal and contextual information exist in videos, e.g., tracklets . These methods require abundant of unlabeled target data and availability of co-occurring tracklets (tracklets from different subjects in the same scene that are produced by accurate face detectors and trackers).

This paper addresses the aforementioned limitations of adapting a video-based face representation for a new video source or environment, so that the adaptation is possible given unlabeled target data or where the detection and tracking information are not accurate or informative to produce labeled tracklets. The contributions of this work are as follows:

-   we introduce a new domain adaptation framework called Dual-Triplet Metric Learning (DTML) that applies a novel dual-triplet loss function and a new mutual supervised learning approach. The proposed framework allows for adapting deep pair-wise matchers to different domains by aligning their distance distributions.

-   we propose a mutual-supervised learning approach where the source (teacher) iteratively labels the unlabeled target (student) data.

-   we applied the proposed dual-triplet loss and mutual-supervised learning approach to the still-to-video face recognition application and provided accuracy that is comparable to the state-of-the-art methods for video face representation learning, but with unsupervised domain adaptation capability.

It is important to mention that the proposed framework can be applied to different modalities, while in this paper we assess the method using the video-based face recognition as a specific use case.

# Related Work

This work has similarities to some Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) methods for deep metric learning. Also, there are commonalities with some methods for video-based representation learning, in general, and self-supervised learning in particular. The relation to existing methods, gaps and proposed solutions to them are discussed in this section.

## UDA with Deep Metric Learning

The distance metric learning approach has been extensively applied to the computer vision area, so that examples belonging to the same label (within-class samples) are close as possible in some embedding space, and samples from different labels (between-class samples) are as far from one another as possible. Recently, triplet and Siamese networks were employed for metric learning which have been successfully applied for few-shot learning and learning with few data . Designing a discriminant and robust distance metric requires abundant of labeled data, and accordingly, UDA methods are required to adapt an existing metric to a new domain where data are unlabeled or scarce (or both cases, as for the applications discussed in this current work).

There are a few works on UDA for deep distance metric learning are recently proposed . In , the adversarial learning approach is applied to decrease the domain discrepancy between the datasets and simultaneously a magnet loss is applied to align the class centers for the source and target embedding. This method works only for closed-set problems (where the source and target share the label space). In , on the other hand, open-set problems can be tackled by introducing a separation loss so that different source and target sets are separated in the embedding space.

We argue that, for such specific case of UDA (i.e., where the adapted model is a distance metric rather than feature-based model), the embedding should be optimized in the distance space rather than in the feature space. In other words, the straight forward objective function (when designing an UDA algorithm for adapting a distance metric) is to distinguish between the different "distance" types (i.e., within-class and between class distances), and simultaneously it should be hard to identify the source of a distance sample (i.e., being constituted from samples coming from the source or the target domain). Also, this objective produces metrics that work for both close- and open-set problems, since it is concerned with the ultimate pairwise distances (rather than with absolute feature representations like with the existing methods ). This new concept is followed to design our proposed method.

## Video-based Face Representation Learning

Face representations, based on still images, are usually designed by training deep CNNs, in general, and Siamese CNNs, in particular. Such techniques, however, can provide unreliable performance when applied to design video-based face representations. Accordingly, more complex models were proposed to provide improved performance, with the expense of decreased efficiency and that can hinder the real-time applicability of the designed representations. More importantly, state-of-the-art methods require information that can be unavailable during operation (or they can be expensive to obtain) and that can make these methods impractical, especially to efficiently calibrate existing models for new video sources (i.e., cameras) using a few unlabeled data from new target subjects.

For instance, In , reliable detection of facial landmarks is required and that may fail due to occlusion. Also, besides the complex ensemble structure that can hinder the real-time processing, the method involves a fine tuning step that requires large amount of data from the operational target domain. In , Haar-like features are extracted so that facial landmark extraction is no longer required, and in a lighter network structure is proposed for improved efficiency. These methods, however, still require synthetic generation of video-like face images and fine tuning using considerable amount of data from the target domain. Some methods like in , require labeled data from the target domain for tuning.

A more recent trend is to employ self-Supervised Learning to automatically label the target data by levering temporal and contextual information exist in videos, e.g., tracklets . Although provide reasonable performance, these methods mostly require large unlabeled data to train representations from scratch. Importantly, these methods require availability of co-occurring tracklets (tracklets from different subjects in the same scene) so that negative samples can be obtained to constitute triplets. The proposed method works even with singleton tracklets (only tracklets from a single subject appear in a scene), or where the face detector and tracker are not reliable to produce labeled tracklets.

# Dual-Triplet Metric Learning

Figure illustrates the proposed Dual-Triplet Metric Learning (DTML) framework for Domain Adaptation. This framework facilitates the calibration of a new video source (camera) when added to an existing operational video-based face system (e.g., a video surveillance Network). Moreover, the proposed framework can be employed to adapt an existing model that works for a specific surveillance network to be operational in a different environment or even within a completely new or a different network.

The calibration data consist of some Regions of Interest (ROIs) with faces of unknown people extracted from videos captured by the new camera. The capturing conditions of the environment and the capturing device are represented in the extracted ROIs and used to calibrate a video-based face representation of an existing video source. The Source can be considered as a teacher as it provides the target (student) with the initial knowledge (embedding) it acquires through supervised learning, and also they (the teacher and the student) continue to learn a shared knowledge (embedding) using their different data (labeled data of the source and unlabeled calibration data of the target).

To this end, the source labeled data are used to learn an initial representation with employing the ordinary triplet-loss approach . For each new (target) camera or environment, the initial source embedding is loaded to the target and gets improved with minimizing a dual-triplet loss. In order to constitute the target part of the dual-triplet loss, a "mutual-supervised" process is employed, where pairwise distances between target calibration samples are computed and statistics of the pairwise source distances are used to label the target distances (as being within-class or between-class distances). During training, the source and target pairwise distance distributions become more similar over time and that implies the following: 1) a distance metric that works for the source also works for the target, and 2) the resulting metric can label pairwise distances from the target as accurate as for the source distances.

## Dual-Triplet Loss

The dual-triplet loss $L$ consists of two terms: a source term $L_s$ and a target term $L_t$:

$$L=L_{s}+\lambda . L_{t}.$$ where $\lambda$ is the parameter that balancing the two objectives.

cm

A source triplet $L_{s}$ is constituted from labeled source data, using an anchor $a$, a positive sample $p$, a negative sample $n$, and a margin $\alpha$: $$L_{s}=max(||f(a)-f(p)||-||f(a)-f(n)||+\alpha,0)$$ To constitute a target triplet, it can be impossible to use the absolute representation of anchor, positive and negative samples, since the target data can be unlabeled. To resolve this limitation, we are only interested in labeling the pairwise distances as being either within-class $(wc)$ or between-class $(bc)$. Once the distances are labeled, the target triplet is constituted as follows:

$$L_{t}=max(||wc||-||bc||+\alpha,0)$$

The source triplet aims at designing a discriminant distance metric since it is based on labeled data from the source domain. The target triplet aims at separating the within-class and between-class target distances with the same margin as that for the source distances, so that the pairwise distance distributions of both domains are similar (and hence, the resulting distance metric is valid for both domains).

It is important to mention that the proposed DTML method can be applied when a few labeled samples are available from the target domain (e.g., where co-occurring tracklets are available or when some calibration data are manually annotated). In that case, the target triplets can be constituted directly from the labeled samples as that with the source triplets. In case no labeled data are available from the target domain or when only singleton tarcklets data are available (i.e., frames belong to a single person appear in the scene, so no dissimilar pairwise labels are provided by tracklets), the following mutual-supervised method is required.

## Mutual Supervision

The objective of the mutual-supervised learning method is leverage the labeled samples of the source to extract positive (within-class) and negative (between-class) pairwise distance samples from the unlabeled target samples.

Figure illustrates the proposes mutual-supervised learning method. Firstly, both source and target training samples are represented using the initial embedding trained using the labeled source data in supervised mode. Then, pairwise distances from both datasets are generated by computing the Euclidean distance between the feature vectors of each pair. Since the source dataset is labeled, it is straightforward to label the source pairwise distances as within-class (WC) or between-class (BC) if they belong to same-person or different persons, respectively. Distributions of the WC and BC pairwise distance samples are generated (see Figure .a). Statistics of these distributions are used to identify two mining windows: 1) within-class mining window ($WC_{mw}$) and 2) between-class mining window ($BC_{mw}$):

$$WC_{mw} =[\mu_{wc}-\sigma_{wc},\mu_{wc}].$$ $$BC_{mw} =[\mu_{bc}, \mu_{bc}+\sigma_{bc}].$$

where $\mu_{wc}, \sigma_{wc}$ and $\mu_{bc},\sigma_{bc}$ are the mean and standard deviation of the WC and BC pairwise distances, respectively.

These mining windows are computed to achieve a trade-off between confidence of labeling (picking distance samples that are close enough to the center of the distributions and far from the confusion areas where WC and BC distances can overlap) and also to avoid picking too much easy samples (samples that exist towards the tail of the distributions as these samples most likely lie beyond the margin so they do not contribute to the loss function).

Once the mining windows are computed based on the source pairwise distance distributions, they are used to locate (label) the target distance samples (see Figure .b). Initially, the source and target distributions are not aligned (as a result of the domain shift), so using the source mining windows maybe not accurate enough and also may locate a small number of samples. These samples are used to constitute the target triplet loss term, then dual triplet is used to train a new target representation.

The above process is repeated for each training batch and eventually the source and target pairwise distance distributions become more aligned as WC and BC samples from both domains are enforced to be separated by the same margin, and a shared representation is used to represent samples from both domains.

Figure (c and d) illustrate how the source and target distributions are getting aligned through the DTML with mutual-supervised training. When better aligned, the source mining Windows produce more accurate pseudo-labels of the target pairwise distance and also locate larger number of samples from each bucket (the WC and BC buckets). Also, it is important to note that the inaccuracies of the target loss term (as a result of the imperfect pseudo-labeling) can be compensated by the existence of the perfect source loss term.

# Experimental Methodology

Although the proposed DTML framework and mutual-supervised learning approach may be applied for different modalities, we assess the methods here for the specific still-to-video (S2V) face recognition (FR) application. To this end, face ROIs are captured by video cameras and matched against high quality frontal still face images of some users enrolled to the system.

Two video-based face recognition datasets are used for the experimentation: 1) the public COX face dataset and 2) a private video-based dataset that we created internally for performance assessment.

The COX dataset is used to assess the proposed approach ability to adapt a model that works for an existing camera in a surveillance network to be operational for a new camera added to the network. On the other hand, the private dataset is utilized to simulate the case where a model designed for am exiting surveillance network is leveraged and adapted for a different network or operational environment.

For the COX dataset where the standard experimental protocol described in is followed in this experimental study, so results can be compared to the state-of-the-art methods. The dataset consists of 1000 subjects with still images are captured for each subject and then each person is captured by 3 video cameras with different views. As described in , samples from 300 subjects are considered a training set, and the remaining 700 subjects are used for the testing. To simulate the camera calibration scenario, we split the training set to 200 subjects for training the initial source models, and 100 subjects for calibrate the new camera. This split is important to simulate the case where subjects used during developing the initial solution (i.e., in the lab) are different than the subjects who appear in the operational field during a calibration session. This setup also simulate the "open-set" scenario, where subjects appear during operation are not seen during the design and calibration phases.

The private video-based dataset consists of 100 subjects where only video-based face images are captured by a commercial IP video surveillance camera during real operational setup. Since there is no still templates are collected during operation, we manually selected best face image from each subject (i.e., nearly frontal, best size and quality, etc) and used them as a still images gallery. The training set consists of 30 subjects and the testing set consists of the remaining 70 subjects. Since we simulate the case where a model from an existing network is leveraged and adapted for a new network or environment, so here we use a model tuned for camera 1 from the COX dataset as a source, and employ the proposed approach to adapt this work for the camera that we used to create our private dataset. Accordingly, the whole training set (30 subjects) are used for calibration.

For all experiments, samples are firstly represented using the VGG Face representation . Then, a source embedding is trained using triplet loss. This embedding is used to test the case where only source models are leveraged without any domain adaptation step. To this end, the S2V performance for the subjects of the testing set is computed and considered as a lower-bound performance.

To simulate the camera calibration process using our proposed UDA approach, the calibration and training data (from source and target cameras, respectively) are represented by the learned source representation and used to constitute the dual-triplet terms. Then, the DTML algorithm runs to learn an embedding for the calibrated camera.

To simulate the case where labeled data are available from the calibrated camera (e.g., through expensive manual annotation), the DTML is employed but the target labels are taken directly from the dataset instead of the labels produced by the mutual-supervised method.

To test the impact of the dual-triplet loss terms, three scenarios are implemented:

1.  $L_s$: where only data from the source camera are used and only the the source triplet is used to tune the network. This scenario simulates the case where we don't use calibration data and only keep improving the source representation.

2.  $L_t$: where only data from the target camera are used and only the the target triplet is used to tune the network. This scenario simulates the case where we only rely on calibration data to adapt the source model for the new camera.

3.  $L_s +L_t$: where data from both the source and calibrated cameras are used for adaptation, which is the exact DTML proposed method.

For all experiments, the batch size is set to 100 (5 persons per batch, 20 images per person). The source labels are used to load training images from five different persons per batch, while the proposed mutual-supervision method is employed to pseudo-label pair-wise image distances so that equivalent number of similar and dissimilar images are loaded from the target dataset. Then, DTML runs for 40 epochs, and performance is tested using rank 1 accuracy and the Area Under ROC Curves (AUC). Parameter $\lambda$ (see Eq. 1) is used to balance the contributions of the source and target triplet terms to the overall loss function. Extensive experimentation show that equal contributions lead to best results, so we set $\lambda=1$ in all reported results.

# Experimental Results and Discussion

```latex
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\cline{2-7}

 & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{C3  $\rightarrow$   C1}  & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{C1 $\rightarrow$ C3}   & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{C3 $\rightarrow$ C2}\\ \hline

\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\textbf{Methods}} & AUC & Acc   & AUC & Acc   & AUC & Acc  \\ \hline

\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{VGG-Face \cite{Cao18}}
& - & 69.6
& - & 68.1
& - & 76.0

\\ \hline\hline

\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{TBE-CNN \cite{Ding18}}
& - & 87.8
& - & 88.2
& - & 95.7
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{CCM-CNN \cite{Parchami17}}
& - & 87.8
& - & 88.6
& - & 92.1
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{HaarNet \cite{Parchami17b}}
& - & 87.9
& - & 89.3
& - & 97.0

\\ \hline\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Source model: without DA\end{tabular}}
& 0.98 & 95.0
& 0.90 & 81.7
& 0.94 & 87.2
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Proposed UDA: DTML-A\end{tabular}}
& 0.99 & 97.7
& 0.95 & 88.7
& 0.97 & 91.0

\\
\hline

\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Upper-bound: supervised DA\end{tabular}}
& 0.99 & 98.0
& 0.98 & 93.3
& 0.99 & 95.3
%\\ \hline\hline
%\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{M-ADDA \cite{ganin2014}}
%& -& xxx
%& - & XXX
%& - & XXX

\\ \hline

\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance of the proposed DTML method with mutual supervision on the COX dataset.}
\label{table:results}
\end{table*}
```

Table shows the S2V Face Recognition results using the COX dataset. It is obvious that tuning the basic feature representation (VGG-Face) using the source data only provides improved accuracy, even without applying any domain adaptation step. This observation is expected, as cameras within same network have some similarities, and accordingly training for one camera can help for the other cameras.

Applying the proposed DTML algorithm with mutual-supervision achieved a significant improvement for both domain shift problems (around 5% increase in AUC for both cases). While the source model performance is very low compared to the upper-bound performance (in case that labels of the calibration data are available, e.g., through expensive manually annotation, perfect co-occurring tracklets, etc.), the proposed method could perform a reliable domain adaptation in an unsupervised fashion (i.e., UDA) and achieved a performance close to the upper-bound.

Comparing with the performance of state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method achieves comparable results (for the Cam3 $\rightarrow$ Cam2 case), and somewhat less performing (for the Cam1 $\rightarrow$ Cam3 case). Noting that these methods are either less efficient (e.g., because they involve complex ensembles of CNNs, expensive generation of synthetic video-like ROIs, etc.), or they rely on information that can be unavailable during camera calibration (e.g., facial marks that can be unavailable due to occlusion, abundant of calibration data, etc.). On the other hand, the proposed DTML with mutual-supervision approach employs simple CNN structures, and only uses a small amount of unlabeled calibration data without the need to generate synthetic captures or extract facial landmarks.

Figures and illustrates the impact of the dual triplet terms. In Figure , it is clear that only using the source data (i.e., using loss triplet term $L_s$ only) is not helpful to classify samples from the target camera. Also, using the target loss ($L_t$) alone, although gained performance increase during the initial training iteration, the performance is dramatically decreased afterwards due to model overfitting. Having both the source and target triplets ($L_s + L_t$) guarantee continuous performance increase over the training period.

In Fig , it is clear that source data alone provides a limited performance gain. Similar to the above observation, the best performance is achieved when triplets from both domains are optimized. Although using triplets from only the target domain provided adequate performance for this domain shift problem, this result wouldn't be achieved without having the help of the source as the target data are initially unlabeled and they are labeled using the source embedding (in order to constitute the target triplets).

Fig illustrates the impact of applying the proposed UDA method to adapting a model designed for an existing camera to a new camera so that surveillance networks are extensible. Fig .a shows the TSNE representation of the testing samples from the first ten subjects captured by camera 2 (target camera, newly added to the network) of the COX dataset, where the embedding is generated using a model tuned for camera 3 (source camera, already exist in the network). It is clear that the source embedding is not suitable enough for the target camera. Fig .b shows the the TSNE representation of the target camera after adapting the model using the proposed UDA approach. It is clear that the adapted model provides discriminant representation.

Fig illustrates the impact of applying the proposed method to leveraging a model of an existing network to be function for a new network or environment where collecting and labeling enough data from the new network to train a model from scratch is infeasible. Fig .a shows the TSNE representation of the testing samples from the first ten subjects captured by the target camera (a commercial IP camera used to capture video-based face image in a realistic operation conditions in an uncontrolled environment). The embedding is generated using a model that is fine tuned for camera 1 from the COX dataset. Although we have chosen the source camera from the COX dataset (that is closest to the target camera as it has the least domain shift between source and target), it is obvious most clusters (subjects representation) are split into two separate sets and there is a significant overlap between subjects(see the top part of the plot). When we applied the proposed UDA approach, using unlabeled samples from the target camera, the clusters are well separated (see .b) and accordingly the FR accuracy has significantly improved (True positive rate at False Alarm rate (FAR=1%) increased from 52% from 73%).

Figure (that is used to illustrate the proposed mutual-supervised learning method in in Section III.B; these distance distribution plots are generated using camera 1 from the COX dataset as a source and our private video-face dataset as a target) shows the separability of WC and BC distance distributions of the target data where the source initial embedding is adapted using the proposed UDA approach. With UDA, the source and target distributions are well aligned. More specifically, after adaptation, a simple threshold, e.g., 0.9 provides a good trade-off between false positives and false negatives for both of the source and target domains, as apposed to to initial state (Figures (a and b) where the source and target distance distributions are not aligned and a threshold that works for the source (e.g., 0.8) results in high FAR rates when used by the target.

It is important to mention that, although the adapted embedding provides more aligned and separable pairwise distance distributions (i.e., target within-class (WC) and between-class (BC) distributions are better separated and aligned with the source distributions), it is not expected to rely only on the quality of resulting embedding to provide accurate classification results when simple Euclidean distance is used as a distance metric, and also when a simple threshold is used for classification in the embedding space.

Accordingly, we further feed the embedding of the still (template) and video (query) samples to a two-layer fully connected network and we trained this outer network separately using the pseudo-labeling approach in Section III.B. This step has improved the recognition accuracy from $73\%$ to $84\%$ with $FAR=1\%$. More importantly, instead of feeding the two streams of embedding (from both the still and video samples), we further generate the following dissimilarity feature representation:

$$\delta(X) =|X^{Q} - X^{T}|.$$

where $X^{Q}$ and $X^{T}$ are the feature representation generated by embedding adapted with the proposed DTML approach for the query (video) and template (still) samples, respectively. The resulting dissimilarity representation is accordingly of the same dimensionality as that for the original representation. We noticed a significant improvement in accuracy due this transformation step (recognition accuracy has increased from $84\%$ to $90\%$ with $FAR=1\%$). Future work will explore employing the DTML approach with having the dissimalrity representation and the outer layers trained in an end-to-end fashion.

Also, it is important to note that the proposed method is only applicable to transfer problems where the domain shift between the source and target domain is small enough so that mutual-supervised training is possible. For instance, if the initial source and target distance distribution are not aligned enough so that mining approach locate completely wrong samples, or even does not any sample from either the WC or the BC buckets, so in this case the mutual-supervised learning mechanism will not work correctly (see Figure ). Future work will explore different methods to enforce the distance distributions of the different domains to be aligned without the need for the pseudo-labeling step, by employing the adversarial learning concept.

# Conclusion

A general method for domain adaptation of deep distance metrics is proposed in this paper. The proposed method is applicable to domain shift problems where the target domain can provide a small amount of data, and also the cases where only unlabeled target data are available. Two main aspects of the proposed method are discussed: the dual-triplet optimization and the mutual-supervision process. Having a dual-triplet form the source and target domains helps in avoiding model corruption because if the lack of target data, and also makes the pairwise distance distributions of both domains more similar. The mutual-supervision feature provides a tool to constitute triplets from the unlabelled target samples. The method is applied to provide unsupervised domain adaptation for the still-to-video face recognition systems and achieved a level of accuracy comparable to the state-of-the-art more complex methods, that also can be impractical given the limitations of the camera calibration use-case.


abstract: We examine the possibility to employ neutrinos to communicate within the galaxy. We discuss various issues associated with transmission and reception, and suggest that the resonant neutrino energy near 6.3 PeV may be most appropriate. In one scheme we propose to make $Z^o$ particles in an overtaking $e^+ - e^-$ collider such that the resulting decay neutrinos are near the $W^-$ resonance on electrons in the laboratory. Information is encoded via time structure of the beam. In another scheme we propose to use a $30 PeV$ pion accelerator to create neutrino or anti-neutrino beams. The latter encodes information via the beam CP state as well as timing. Moreover the latter beam requires far less power, and can be accomplished with presently foreseeable technology. Such signals from an advanced civilization, should they exist, will be eminently detectable in existing neutrino detectors.
author: John G. Learned$^{1}$; Sandip Pakvasa$^{1}$; A. Zee$^{2}$
date: 2024-10-01
title: Galactic Neutrino Communication

# Introduction: Neutrinos for galactic communication

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has now gone on for decades without detecting a signal. Thus far, the search has presumed that the transmission would be in photons within radio or optical bands. In this note, we suggest that it may be more sensible to search for a possible signal in neutrinos. We will discuss some of the physics issues related to both transmission and reception.

Why would one want to employ the notoriously difficult-to-observe neutrino to communicate? Some reasons are obvious.

i\) The obscuration/opaqueness of material between the source and detector makes photons less useful within the galactic plane and particularly for lines-of-sight anywhere near the galactic center. Neutrinos arrive almost without attenuation from any source direction (though at the energies we suggest below, they are attenuated through the earth).

ii\) Neutrinos are rare, and from a given direction are all but negligible (particularly at high energies as we discuss below). For photons the signal/noise (S/N) problem is not at all negligible in any band and is worse for all directions where galactic civilizations may reside (presumably in the galactic plane). For neutrinos the band can be essentially noise free.

iii\) Even when photons are not completely blocked, their scattering introduces jitter in arrival time as well as direction. As we discuss below, the reasonable encoding for maximally energy-efficient information transfer may employ the time interval between quanta. Moreover, in one scheme, data may be encoded via the use of neutrinos versus anti-neutrinos.

There have been early general proposals for the use of neutrinos for interstellar communication and for SETI . There were also more recent and more specific proposals about the use of neutrinos in SETI , . In this note we propose a new way of using neutrinos for communication by ETI and point out that existing and future facilities will be able to look for these signals without any need for new construction or expense.

# What neutrino energies are most suitable?

What neutrino energies are best suited for galactic communication?

First, let us consider relatively low energy neutrinos, those typical of nuclear, solar and supernovae (SN) processes. One strike against this energy region, roughly up to around 10 MeV (40 MeV for SN) is that such neutrinos are produced in abundance naturally, so there is some signal-to-noise barrier to overcome. If one thinks of the natural emission from radioactive decays, from stars and from supernovae across the universe, this region is not so attractive since these sources are enormously powerful and one must compete against them (The "noise" is small, but the inherent signal-to-noise ratio S/N is also small for any imaginable source.) Moreover, directionality at the lower energies is at best difficult. Also, S/N aside, at low energies the neutrino-nucleon interaction cross-section is dauntingly small, of order $10^{-42}~cm^2$. (For the same reason of vanishingly small cross-sections, we dismiss further discussion of even lower neutrino energies.) We have also considered the possibility of employing resonant nuclear energies, but we have not identified any viable mechanism which will beat the problems of inherent S/N and low cross sections.

For these reasons we are driven to consider higher energies. The neutrino cross section grows with energy linearly until the 100 TeV energy range, and then logarithmically. The (dominant) terrestrial neutrino backgrounds fall rapidly, one power in energy more steeply than the cosmic ray spectrum. For a beam, there are further gains of order $E^2$ due to the solid angle of the beam, and typically one would gain altogether by a factor of $>E^3$ in signal, and $>E^6$ in S/N on a per particle basis.

The energy chosen should be such that it would be clear at once that it is an artificial source such as ETI and not some random background. One choice is to make $Z^o$'s at rest as was proposed earlier . Then the neutrinos from such a source have energies of exactly $m_Z$/2, about 45 GeV, and are easily identifiable as due to $Z^o$ decay: there are no natural sources of $\nu$'s of this precise energy. In this case the neutrinos are emitted in a spherically symmetrical manner, and because of that the power requirements for galactic distances, reach the scale of total solar power (as estimated there) to obtain a significant counting rate. Of course one might argue that this is not "our" problem, but one to be solved by the postulated advanced civilization with technology we cannot yet imagine. But resorting to harnessing (Dyson) stars certainly moves the potentiality of such communication to the distant future, if indeed such is ever practical for a civilization. It was further proposed there that the detection process employed electrons accelerated such that the incoming electron-anti-neutrino interact at the Glashow resonance i.e. producing a W boson on-shell (an electron energy $E_e = {m_W}^2 /4
m_e$, about 35.5 GeV) with a large cross-section.

We presume that the ETIs, though in our galaxy, are remote. Even if an ETI has been observing us, it may be a long while (timescale of thousands of years) before they would send us an introductory message. So if they want to send a message in advance, saying hello and welcome to the galactic network, they are going to have to speculate about when to bother to transmit. From the jittering of advances in speciation, with the great die offs, it seems clear that evolution is a stochastic process, with fluctuations on a timescale of many millions of years. The evolution of technology may fluctuate over a timescale of thousands of years, as exemplified by the long periods of lack of technological progress in post-Roman Europe, China and India. One must reason that no useful prediction could be made as to when the industrial revolution would take off and high technology would arise. Thus the ETI would have to be transmitting speculatively over a long period.

Communication may be initiated for many hypothetical reasons. For example, to simply welcome a new society to the galactic club, or to warn of dangers from within or without, or for reasons we cannot now guess. Indeed, it seems best not to speculate on motives for transmission at this point but to focus on physics issues. In any event, it seems that there might be two stages, the first being to simply get the attention of the recipient and the second to send information. One might also imagine ETI sending information to military outposts via secure neutrino beam, on a known schedule and in a small solid angle, and we happen to be in the transmission path, but the probability of our intercepting such is evidently negligible.

Given light transmission time over galactic dimensions, compared to evolution time in our world, we cannot foresee much of a dialogue, but that is of course also true for electromagnetic communication. Note, for example, that signals leaving the center of our galaxy at the time of the first human settlements would not arrive for another 14 millenia. Monologues are what we can anticipate at best. That is the case unless there are means to beat the speed of light via wormholes or extra dimensions, but such do not now appear to be viable within established physics.

It has been argued persuasively that transmission of large amounts of data via radio or light are very inefficient compared to the deposition of artifacts, snail mail as it were. Artifacts can hold huge amounts of data, and need only be sent once or very seldom to promising star systems and left to be discovered later. We thus imagine that there is not a great need for a high data rate channel in the galaxy, but perhaps only as stated above, for some minimal information of overwhelming importance, which might include instructions on where to find the artifact.

# Directional transmission and detection via resonant neutrinos

Instead of omnidirectional broadcast, let us next consider the possibility of sending out focused neutrino beams in a specified direction, aimed at promising star systems.

Sending out a focused beam has the advantage of not being seen by all, perhaps a worthy security measure. Many have speculated on the danger of attracting unwanted attention by potentially aggressive species (which conceivably could wish to take over a nice proven habitable planet, or even enslave the inhabitants of such a planet — the subject of much science fiction but not obviously a wrong presumption.) Indeed, some have suggested that our civilization should consider measures to keep our galactic visibility to a minimum for just this reason. Hence transmitting to an unknown new society has risks, particularly since with a beam one may reveal the location of the transmitting entities. If this is indeed a real danger, perhaps an advanced civilization would employ a transmitting station, a lighthouse, at some remove from their home. In view of this, perhaps an advanced civilization may be more inclined to transmit to a newly technically emergent society (TES) such as ours. Such action might offer the rewards of heading off more undesirable consequences possible in the longer term, when a TES is not in a position to be too territorially acquisitive. Or perhaps the ETI would simply like to initiate trade as when Europeans first visited China and India. However, our own history gives no precedent in terms of communication prior to contact, and indeed that history is a bit frightening, since first contacts soon led to exploitation.

Let us assume, moreover that the ETI will guess that a civilization ready to hear their messages will have developed to the point of constructing large neutrino detectors in the process of studying neutrinos and attempting to begin neutrino astronomy. It is hard to justify from some future viewpoint, but we see now that a high energy neutrino detector of the scale of 1 km is reasonable (IceCube under construction at the South Pole, and NESTOR, ANTARES and NEMO and an expanded Lake Baikal detector are all proposed or under development). So, for discussion purposes we shall assume the ETI will aim at communicating with a detector of cross-section on the order of $1 km^2$.

Suppose we make a beam of electron-anti-neutrinos, and get them to a very high energy, to be precise $E_G = {M_W}^2/2 m_e = 6.3 PeV$. Then these can be sent in some chosen directions to be received by observers who can employ a detector seeking the reaction $\bar{\nu_e} + e^-
\rightarrow W^-$ at resonance, the so-called Glashow resonance, as illustrated in Figure . The production and decay of a $W^-$ into a shower provides a unique signature; given more than one such event from a given direction the source would be immediately known to be due to an ETI as there are no natural sources of 6.3 PeV $\bar{\nu_e}$'s. To contrast with the proposal made in 1994, here we boost the initial beam rather than the electrons in the detector; in both one employs the Glashow resonance and its high cross-section. The range of such a resonant neutrino in water is about 100 km, so that these neutrinos would penetrate to the deepest detectors on earth, but would be attenuated in arrival directions below the horizon. This also implies that the detection fraction in a $1~km^3$ detector would be about 1% of the traversing neutrinos.

An efficient mechanism for such a beam generation would be to collide electron-positron beams at a center-of-mass energy at the $Z^o$ mass, but in a fast moving reference frame, so that the decay neutrinos would be at 6.3 PeV. In this instance the electrons might be overtaking the positrons in the laboratory frame, so that the $Z^o$ is fast forward moving and the beam direction determined thereby.

The size of the region illuminated by such a beam from a distance of 1 kiloparsec (about 3,000 light years, $3 \times 10^{16}$ km) is about 3,000 AU across. If we require a beam such that there would be at least 100 neutrinos per $km^2$ area, then the individual pulse would have to have around $10^{26}$ neutrinos(here we use an opening angle in the Z decay of about $M_{Z}/E_{\nu}$).

Needless to say, the numbers we cite are illustrative only as we clearly could not anticipate all possible scenarios. For instance, the ETI may be relatively nearby, either on a extrasolar planetary base or in a space station, waiting for us to build a suitable neutrino telescope.

# Energy Costs

Accelerators are marvelously good at transforming electrical energy into beam energy, typically putting tens of percent of the wall-plug power into the beam. One can imagine a total energy transfer from the delivered power to neutrinos of perhaps 0.1%. In contrast, radio is better, by perhaps one or two orders of magnitude. Lasers are currently not very efficient, but their technology is still evolving rapidly. One may thus argue that the cost of making a neutrino beam is not prohibitive in comparison to photon beams. Also, the radio beams have the potential disadvantage of sidelobes, which could be a strongly negative factor if the security issue is real or perceived to be so.

At an energy cost of order $10^{25}$ Joules per pulse (allowing for accelerator efficiency and the fact that the Z decays into neutrinos only 20% of the time, and of that only 1/6 will be electron anti-neutrinos), this is a huge energy output. If the pulses were fired once per second, the accelerator power would be about 3% of the solar luminosity. In fact, taking into account the flat spectrum of the neutrinos from Z decay after the boost, there is a further factor of $m_Z/\Gamma_Z$, which makes the required power about equal to the solar luminosity. This is clearly not a task we can imagine carrying out on any projection of our present technology.

However, we do not know the methods that may be available to advanced civilizations to make a neutrino (or any other) beam. We have direct evidence in the $10^{20}~eV$ cosmic rays, the gamma ray bursts (GRBs), the micro-Quasars, and the amazingly collimated jets from active galactic nuclei (AGN), so that we might suspect that we do not yet understand some fundamental issues on particle acceleration. For example, how does one get an earth mass accelerated to a gamma of 1000 in a distance of a few light seconds, as has been inferred for gamma ray burst jets or "cannonballs"? There is also the possibility mentioned earlier of employing "Dyson" stars. So, for present purposes, we shall assume that an ETI would find it affordable and worthwhile to expend such resources to communicate with our TES.

# Information Encoding via Pulse Timing

What about encoding? Since we are talking about relatively rare events, it seems evident that the encoding information by relative timing of the neutrino pulses provides the only mechanism, much as the use of a simple Morse code in the early days of electromagnetic communication. Also, neutrinos are fermions and presumably encoding could only involve classical physics, rather than say some hypothetical analog of the laser.

Neutrino oscillations might permit some further encoding, but given the distances, oscillations are averaged out. For neutrinos coming from a distance near that to the galactic center, the solar oscillations will have made about a million cycles. If the beam energy were sharp to parts per million, then in fact one would have to worry about the phase of the cycle (earth could be in a null), but this seems not a problem. In any event if only electron anti-neutrinos are detected (as we are considering here), then no information can be encoded in neutrino flavor.

Thus there would be some interval between pulses, which we interpret as some number of time increments long, and that is the message. What would be the natural time increment? One possibility would be the lepton associated 0.3 picosecond lifetime of the tauon. This timing over a large detector is not presently practical, and would seem to be not possible in the foreseeable future. The muon lifetime of 2.2 microseconds would be much easier and more practical. The minimum time interval detectable with present detectors is of the order of 1 nanosecond, and may reach 100 picoseconds in a few decades. With maximum resolution, if events were spaced apart by, say (arbitrarily) 2200 sec on average, then this is $10^{9}$ intervals per pulse, or equivalent to  30 bits, or an equivalent data rate of about 0.014 baud, not so bad for interstellar communications! If we assume transmission with, say, three repetitions then this would be 143,000 bits per year, quite a respectable amount of data.

Some thought should be given to how the ETI might encode data in a way which would be most simple to decode. For example, coarse level timing might encode for the simplest messages helping to establish the link and achieve synchronization, with finer and finer detail encoding more and more complex data.

Finally, at the risk of speculating beyond what would be warranted at present, we might try to guess the content of a message from an advanced civilization. We could ask what we might say if we were in a position to start transmitting. As suggested in another context , in light of the physicist's well documented and almost irresistible urge to publish, an advanced civilization might just want to announce that it has figured out how the universe ticks. A concise summary would be the gauge algebras of the three non-gravitating interactions suitably coded.

# An alternative with Neutrino SuperBeams

As this paper was being drafted, a preprint appeared which proposed that communication from nearby stars might be conducted with neutrino beams such as will be inherent in a muon collider. In present discussions of such, one would rapidly accelerate muons made from pion decays in the 1 GeV energy range (the pions made in collisions of a few megawatt proton beam of a few tens of GeV with a fixed target). These muons would then circulate in order to study high energy muon pair collisions. The muons decay and create a powerful (and even dangerous) neutrino beam. And, there has been much discussion of neutrino factories, using muons as discussed, but only keeping them in a race track (with long straight sides) shaped ring or a nearly triangular ring, with sides pointed at distant detector. Indeed such instruments seem to provide the path towards detailed measurements of neutrino mixing, and we think will be built in the foreseeable future.

We propose an alternative to this which seems to be even more interesting, as illustrated in the cartoon in Figure . Our idea is to accelerate the charged pions before they decay to muons, and to take them to energies in the range discussed previously, $\simeq 30 PeV$, so that the decays would make neutrinos in the 6.3 PeV energy range. The decay distance for pions of this energy will be about 0.5 million km, or about the distance to the moon. The positively charged pions will decay into positive muons and muon neutrinos, and negative pions vice versa, with resulting anti-neutrinos. If one aims the beam at a relatively thin shield (rock) one will kill the muons (which radiate very copiously at this energy), but leave the neutrinos. Hence in selecting whether positive or negative pions are accelerated, one may choose neutrinos or anti-neutrinos as the beam.

In case of $\pi^+$, only $\nu_{\mu}$'s are produced and from $\pi^-$ only $\bar{\nu_{\mu}}$'s are produces. As is well-known the averaged out oscillations, after a distance of about a few light days, convert these into a mixture of all three flavors in the proportion given by $\nu_e$:$\nu_{\mu}$:$\nu_{\tau}$ = 4:7:7, but keeping the particle/antiparticle nature as is. Hence, since it is a matter of sign selection in the accelerator one can switch the neutrino beam between particles and antiparticles, switching on and off the Glashow resonance. There will be a constant signal from either beam due to the other charged and neutrino current reactions. Thus there will thus be different signatures for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, and one may encode information in the nature of each pulse, without regard to timing. In addition, timing can be employed as well, as discussed earlier for the resonant $Z^o$ scheme, and we can substantially boost the data transmission rate.

A strong further attraction of the pion scheme is that the maximum neutrino angle relative to the pion is $({m_\pi}^2 -{m_\mu}^2) / 2
m_\pi / E_\nu$ so the beam is much narrower than the $Z^o$ beam and the target area is smaller by about a factor of about $10^7$. All transmitter powers involved are dramatically reduced so that we would be considering a total beam energy requirement per pulse of order one gigajoule. This is on the order of the energy per pulse which is being discussed for near future controlled fusion reactions on Earth. Given such "modest" power levels, one may imagine transmitting at rates higher than hypothesized for the resonant $Z^o$ method, perhaps one per second, as is easily foreseeable with present technology (a gigawatt of power, less than many present nuclear power stations).

The penalty for the tight beam however is that the ETI must know the precise planet they are targeting and know its ephemeris, since the 10 million km beam spread (from 1 kpc) is less than 0.01 AU. If they have surveyed the stellar systems and singled out earth, then this would not seem a barrier as they would of necessity have determined the orbital parameters, and extrapolation of the earth's orbit over a few millenia should pose no problem.

The only thing we do not yet readily foresee in this scheme is how to accelerate the pions to this high energy ($30 PeV$). Yet, a linear accelerator (in space) with a gradient of 100 GeV/m (already achieved for short distances in the laboratory) would require a length of 1,000 km, which seems not wildly implausible for a future civilization. Also, while aiming with sufficient precision would certainly pose problems for us at present (at the level of 0.07 milliarcseconds), such a scale would be needed by the ETI to optically resolve the earth in any event.

# Concluding Remarks

We have outlined a method for intragalactic communication via directed 6.3 PeV beams of electron anti-neutrinos, and other neutrinos. Such beams can be created with reasonable energy efficiency by a civilization without a long stretch from the technology we now possess. Detection of such a beam, possible given a detecting civilization with our present level of neutrino detectors (cubic kilometer scale), would be evidently due to ETI with only a few events detected since there is no known mechanism for making neutrinos at only this energy range. Plus, having a few as two neutrinos arrive from precisely the same direction would be very unlikely unless accompanied by a huge burst of radiation in other bands. Data would accumulate at a rate plausibly about 1 Hz equivalent bandwidth and decoding the pattern would take perhaps one year. This would amount to transmission of 1000 pages of material per year, a tremendous amount of information. Given that the transmitting entity would have to know about the earth's (and other targets') ephemeris and possibly even day cycle, their transmission might be set to repeat several times daily and again on a longer cycle. Given that the ETI have no a priori knowledge of when observations will begin, and cannot get feedback for millenia afterward, multiple transmissions would be necessary, but perhaps only once in a few years, as perhaps they would illuminate other systems alternately and if our picture of the device is at all accurate, redirecting the accelerator would require some time.

No special action is required on our part, since if this speculative hypothesis should be correct, we will soon discover such signatures, but perhaps such will not arrive for some time. This adds motivation to keep all neutrino telescopes operating for long timescales, such as the watch for supernovae in our galaxy and unpredictable burst events of all types. We humans should certainly think about and continue to explore other means for such communications, but to us neutrinos seem to provide some special opportunities.